Sitting of 12 February 1981

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS
BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL (By Order)
Order for Third Reading read.
To be read the Third time upon Thursday 19 February.
LONDON TRANSPORT (NO. 2) BILL (By Order)
Order for Third Reading read.
To be read the Third time upon Tuesday 17 Feburary.
GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) (No. 2) BILL (By Order)
Order for consideration, as amended, read.
To be considered upon Thursday 19 February.
BRITISH RAILWAYS (NO. 2) (By Order)
BRITISH RAILWAYS (PENSIONS SCHEMES) BILL (By Order)
BRITISH TRANSPORT DOCKS BILL (By Order)
GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL (By Order)
LLOYD'S BILL (By Order)
LONDON TRANSPORT BILL (By Order)
Orders for Second Reading read.
To be read a Second time upon Thursday 19 February.
LLOYDS BANK BILL (By Order)
Order for Second Reading read.
To be read a Second time upon Tuesday 17 February.

Oral Answers to Questions
  Northern Ireland

    Security
    Mr. Biggs-Davisonasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will make a statement about the security of the Province, with particular reference to the border area.
    Mr. Molyneauxasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will make a statement on frontier security.
    Mr. Dunlopasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he remains satisfied with the state of security in Northern Ireland, in the light of the recent murder of Sir Norman Stronge and his son.
    Rev. Ian Paisleyasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the security situation in Northern Ireland.
    The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Humphrey Atkins): I have to report that since I last answered questions nine people have died as a result of terrorist violence. They include Sir Norman Stronge, his son James, who was a member of the RUC Reserve, and six other members of the security forces. Attacks on commercial and business premises also occurred, and, although much damage was done, a number of attacks were foiled by the bravery and skill of the ammunition technical officers.
    Since the lull at the time of the prison hunger strike, terrorist organisations have clearly renewed their activities. However, they have continued to suffer reverses.
    Nearly 2,000 lbs of explosive material was seized near Ardglass in January, and other stocks of munitions have also been seized. A 600 lb culvert bomb was successfully disarmed near Bessbrook, together with an associated booby trap device.
    Fifty-six people have been charged with serious crime, including five with murder and 13 with attempted murder. These include three men charged following the attack on Mr. and Mrs. McAliskey near Coalisland.
    I have said before that neither I nor the security forces can be satisfied so long as anybody is killed or injured by terrorist violence. But it is the fact that the level of violence so far this year is lower than this time last year. This confirms me in my conviction that the course on which the security forces are set is the right one. The Chief Constable and the GOC are satisfied that they have sufficient resources on the ground. I know that they will not be distracted from their tasks by danger or provocation, and I call on all people of good will in Northern Ireland to give them full support.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to call first the four hon. Members whose questions are being answered.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: Is there evidence since the Dublin summit and the murders that my right hon. Friend has mentioned that more is really being done by the Republic

    969
    to secure its side of the frontier from terrorist activities and to speed the surrender to justice of the terrorists there harboured?
    Mr. Atkins: There is a question later on the Order Paper on this issue. Both the Chief Constable and the GOC advise me that the co-operation that they are receiving in cross-border security activities from the Republic is increasing all the time.
    Mr. Molyneaux: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that any measures designed to eliminate killer gangs in the greater Belfast area will not result in any weakening of the defence of the frontier? Will he assure the House that everything possible will be done to increase security in both spheres?
    Mr. Atkins: We are conscious of the need to maintain a high level of security force presence in border areas. Both the Chief Constable and the GOC have that in mind. Without going into details, which I know the hon. Gentleman would not wish me to do, that is being done.
    Mr. Dunlop: As the RUC was successful in ramming one of the escape vehicles after the murders of Sir Norman Stronge and his son, will the Secretary of State say how many rounds of ammunition were fired by the RUC and how many were fired by the terrorists? Will he inform us if the second police car was engaged in the attack as well? This is an important aspect of that monstrous and savage crime. Will the Secretary of State please make a statement about it?
    Mr. Atkins: Without notice, I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the details for which he asks, but I shall furnish him with them later, in whatever form he finds most appropriate.
    As the hon. Gentleman said, the first police car was rammed by the terrorists when they were attempting to escape, and an exchange of fire followed. It was unfortunate that the terrorists managed to make their escape. It is to be hoped that on future occasions they will not be so fortunate as they were on that occasion.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the Secretary of State confirm or deny that the army patrol, which was to observe Tynan Abbey on the night of that atrocious murder of Sir Norman Stronge and his son James, was being wined and dined at a well-known Republican house in that area? Will he also deny or confirm that the helicopter which came to the assistance of the RUC ran out of fuel and had to return to base? Will he tell us what action has been taken against the officer who was responsible for the patrol not being in position on the night of that terrible incident?
    Mr. Atkins: I never give details in the House of the security force operations, as the hon. Gentleman well knows, I cannot understand why it is in the interests of anyone to make such charges.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: Cover-up.
    Mr. Fitt: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member for Antrim North (Rev. Ian Paisley) has said that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is a liar.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: So he is.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Did the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) make that statement?
    Rev Ian Paisley: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I made that statement because it is true.
    Mr. Peter Robinson: So it is.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) knows that he must withdraw that remark at once.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: I have no intention of withdrawing the truth. Evidently, the Secretary of State prefers—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I name Rev. Ian Paisley for gross discourtesy to the Chair. I call upon a Minister to move the appropriate motion.
    Mr. Peter Robinson: My hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) is telling the truth.
    Mr. Stan Thorne: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: There can be no points of order at this stage.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Michael Jopling): I beg to move,
    "That Rev. Ian Paisley be suspended fron the service of the House."
    Question put:
    The House proceeded to a Division.
    Mr. Le Marchant and Mr. Berry were appointed Tellers for the Ayes, and Mr. Peter Robinson was appointed Teller for the Noes, but no Member being willing to act as a second Teller for the Noes, Mr. Speaker declared that the Ayes had it.
    Question agreed to.
    The hon. Member withdrew.
    Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Under Standing Order No. 8, I believe that you have the power to extend Question Time. This incident was unlooked for by the House. Because of the argument, hon. Members could be deprived of the opportunity to ask questions. Therefore, I suggest to you Mr. Speaker, that you add the time that has been taken from questions to the end of Question Time in order to help the House.
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is under a misapprehension. That power relates to private notice questions rather than to Question Time. All the precedents are that when such an incident happens, it comes out of Question Time. We shall now continue with questions.
    Mr. McCusker: Does the Secretary of State agree that the identity of most of the men involved in the killing of some of my constituents, including Sir Norman and James Stronge, is known, not only to the security forces on both sides of the border, but to Ministers on both sides of the border? Is it not deplorable that all my constituents can do is wait until someone else is killed?
    Mr. Atkins: I do not know the names of any of the criminals. If I did, I would inform the security forces. I have no doubt that there are strong suspicions, and I hope very much that evidence will be produced so that the guilty people can be convicted.
    Mr. Kilfedder: In view of the success of the operation by the SAS against the Iranian Embassy terrorists in London last year, and the findings of the court that the members of the SAS were not guilty of murder in the circumstances of the siege when they shot the gunmen, will the right hon. Gentleman deploy enough units of the SAS in Northern Ireland to deal effectively and immediately with the terrorists, particularly along the border of West Belfast and Crossmaglen?
    Mr. Atkins: As I have said, the Chief Constable and the GOC are satisfied that they have sufficient resources on the ground. I emphasise that all members of the Security Forces are subject to the law, like everyone else.
    Mr. Concannon: Is the Secretary of State aware that many of us believe that cross-border co-operation is getting better all the time? However, will he nevertheless keep that matter at the top of the agenda in any discussions with Dublin, because it is important that we have as much co-operation as possible with the South over security?
    Mr. Atkins: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I agree that co-operation is improving all the time. It is a matter that we keep constantly before us in our discussions with the authorities south of the border.
    Mr. Fitt: Does the Secretary of State accept that there are two malign forces in Northern Ireland—one led by the IRA and the other by paramilitary leaders, who are in some cases elected by the Unionist Loyalists—and that they feed off each other? Is he aware that members of the IRA murder policemen, UDR men and innocent civilians and that that leads to a reaction from the men who lead illegal armies up hills in County Antrim and who refuse to recognise the authority of this House? Why does the Secretary of State find it so difficult to ban the activities of the Ulster Defence Association, when that association is clearly identified with some of the most atrocious murders committed in Northern Ireland and in particular the attempted murder of Bernadette Devlin? Will the Secretary of State give an undertaking that the sheer weight of numbers in the UDA will not prevent him from bringing into action all the forces of law and order to defeat the UDA, the IRA and any other paramilitary organisation that there may be in Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Atkins: Without agreeing with every detail of what the hon. Gentleman says, I state at once that the size of an organisation has nothing to do with whether it is proscribed. The test of proscription is whether an organisation is actively encouraging, supporting or engaged in terrorist activities. Any organisation that is is liable to be proscribed. The most important thing is to prevent people from committing crimes, and, if they do commit them, whoever they are and wherever they come from, to bring them swiftly to justice. That is what the main thrust of our efforts is directed towards.

    Unemployed Persons
    Mr. Thomas Coxasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people aged under 21 years in Northern Ireland are unemployed; and what percentage of the work force this represents.
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Butler): The monthly unemployment statistics do not show separately people aged under 21. The figure for January 1981 for unemployed persons under 20 was 20,754. This represents 3·6 per cent. of all employees in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Cox: Is the Minister aware that the significance of his reply is that, despite all the problems in Northern Ireland, there is still no hope of meaningful employment for thousands of young men and women? Is he not aware that Northern Ireland cries out for a stable industrial base that offers employment and training and that it wants to
    972
    get away from the utter stupidity of paying millions of pounds to keep people in unemployment? When will that message be understood by the Government?
    Mr. Butler: I agree that the need is for a stable industrial base. That is what our policies are designed to procure. In the meantime we are taking steps to give employment to young people. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, we have increased the number of places on the youth opportunities programme by about 40 per cent. since the previous Administration were in power.
    Mr. Bradford: What steps does the Minister intend to take to rejuvenate the construction industry in Northern Ireland? How many jobs have been lost in that industry since the moratorium was applied in July 1980?
    Mr. Butler: That question arises under the hon. Gentleman's name later. I shall answer it then.
    Mr. Kilfedder: Does the Minister agree that the proposed expansion of the youth opportunities programme from 7,000 to 10,000 places is inadequate to deal with the appalling unemployment that exists for young people in the Province? Will he set up many more community workshops to help young unemployed people to learn industrial skills and arrange to increase the number of places at Govenment training centres?
    Mr. Butler: With the resources available, the increase of 3,000 places on the youth opportunities programme is sufficient at this time, especially bearing in mind the resources that we are putting behind industrial development.
    Mr. Pendry: Is the Minister aware that in addition to 10 per cent. of the unemployed being school leavers, 30 per cent. are under 21? Does he not recognise that by diminishing the training boards and Enterprise Ulster he is throwing many more young people on to the streets, which must in turn worsen the security situation?
    Mr. Butler: Enterprise Ulster deals more with the long-term adult unemployed, although a few young people are given jobs by the scheme. We are continuing strongly with the Government's training programme at Government training centres and with employers. The schemes are fully supported and are doing valuable work.

    Irish Congress of Trades Unions
    Mr. Stallardasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he next expects to meet the officers of the Northern Ireland Committee of the Irish Congress of Trades Unions.
    Mr. Humphrey Atkins: I have no immediate plans for a formal meeting.
    Mr. Stallard: When the Secretary of State next meets the officers of the Northern Ireland Committee will he explain the Government's statement last July that, although unemployment in Northern Ireland was grim, there was a silver lining? Is he aware that since then the problem has reached crisis proportions and is undermining all the attempts of those who are trying to reconcile the two communities? Will he act on the alternatives being proffered by the Northern Ireland Committee?
    Mr. Atkins: I shall listen to anything that is said to me, but whether I act upon it depends on what it is.
    Mr. Concannon: Is the Secretary of State aware that when I last met NICICTU three weeks ago it was very depressed by the situation in Northern Ireland and that one reason was that it saw no one fighting its corner for jobs in Northern Ireland? What hope will the Minister give on Monday to the group of trade unionists coming from Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Atkins: My hon. Friend met the whole Committee last week and there was a useful exchange of views. I am happy to say that when I talk to the Committee I do not find quite the amount of pessimism that I detect in the right hon. Gentleman.

    De Lorean Car Company Limited
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyneasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland why, in view of the statement he made in August 1980 that the Government's obligation to consider applications for further financial assistance for the de Lorean Company had been discharged, he decided to consider a further application from that company.
    Mr. Adam Butler: I considered a further application for a Government guarantee in respect of commercial loans to help the company resolve a short-term cash problem and take the DMG 12 car through tho market launch. I have now agreed in principle to the provision of a time-limited guarantee for commercial loans of up to £10 million, subject to certain acknowledgements which record the company's acceptance that neither the Northern Ireland Development Agency nor the Department of Commerce has any financial obligations towards the company and which confirm that royalties remain payable as agreed.
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Does not my hon. Friend realise that those undertakings were given to the House six months ago? Is there not a danger that my right hon. Friend, in his dealings with Mr. De Lorean, will come to resemble the young lady from Riga who went for a ride on a tiger? Is my hon. Friend aware that Mr. De Lorean apparently has a T-shirt on which is emblazoned the slogan "I am a con man"? Would he consider sending him a character reference? Can he seriously give the House the assurance that it needs that we shall have an opportunity to debate the matter and vote on it before any further money is given to that con man?
    Mr. Butler: My hon. Friend does not help his cause. It is a serious matter whether more money is put behind that project. In fact, no more money is being provided but purely a Government guarantee behind commercial loans to help the company to launch a car that it believes has good market prospects. The obligations were removed in the agreements last summer but, because of certain press statements about the beliefs of one or two parties to the arrangement, I felt it necessary to come to a firm written understanding with Mr. de Lorean that no such obligations now exist.
    Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Is the Minister aware that a fraction of the sums that have been invested or, as the case may be, sunk in de Lorean would be sufficient to produce an improvement in links, especially the transport links, between the Province and the mainland, with the result that far more employment than can be envisaged from de Lorean would be created and maintained?
    Mr. Butler: The original decision to support that project was taken by the previous Labour Administration. Last year, the Government were faced with an approach for further funds. I have been approached again. I have explained to the House what our practice has been in the circumstances. I must make it clear that we have told the company that the Government have made a sufficient provision of public funds to support the DMG12 car project, and that it must look elsewhere for further funding. The company accepts that.
    Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Will my hon. Friend give an assurance that, if Mr. de Lorean requires further money for his cash flow problems and approaches the Government for a further guarantee, no such guarantee will be given unless the contract, which is so favourable to Mr. de Lorean, is renegotiated?
    Mr. Butler: I made it clear in my response to the previous supplementary question that no more selective assistance would be given to the DMG12 car project. The company is well aware of that.
    Mr. Cryer: Will the Minister confirm that the jobs involved in that company are highly expensive, no matter how welcome they are, at £77 million? Will he confirm also that de Lorean, contrary to statements by members of the Minister's Department of Commerce, has given the fullest information? Will he confirm that audited accounts are now available, contrary to the accounts of the Northern Ireland Development Agency issued yesterday? Will he ensure that the Comptroller and Auditor General has full right of access to the accounts and circumstances of that firm?
    Mr. Butler: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the jobs have been expensive. But again, I must stress that the decision that I have taken has not been to provide more money, but to ensure that the car comes to market launch. If we had not taken that decision, there would have been serious unemployment consequences in Northern Ireland. The House must recognise that fact. I am satisfied with the information that my Department received in coming to the decision.
    Mr. Adley: In his previous incarnation, my hon. Friend will remember that not only did the Department of Industry not take steps to save MG, but it almost deliberately drove it into extinction. Is he aware that some of us who watched that with dismay now watch the saga with de Lorean with even more dismay? Will he allow me, and perhaps one or two of my knowledgeable constituents, to visit de Lorean so that we can look at the project and determine whether my constituents are receiving good value for their taxes?
    Mr. Butler: My hon. Friend knows that his interpretation of the Government's attitude towards MG is different from that of Ministers. I am sure that if my hon. Friend writes to de Lorean, that company would welcome his visit to the factory at an appropriate time.
    Mr. Concannon: The Minister must be aware that there is more to this issue than simply the de Lorean project. It has always been recognised that the project would have spin-off effects both in Northern Ireland and in the remainder of Britain. Jobs both in Northern Ireland and in Britain are affected by the spin-off from that project. For example, the steel industry in Scunthorpe will provide the steel for the project. About 80 per cent. of the

    975
    company's requirements come from the United Kingdom. We have to consider the balance sheet of security as well as politics. The car is coming on stream. While I was in America last week, there was a great deal of publicity for the car, which is eagerly awaited. We must remember that we are talking about employment in Northern Ireland. We should give the car a fair wind and all the help that we can—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Even a Front Bench spokesman must ask a question, rather than have an argument.
    Mr. Butler: The right hon. Memberfor Mansfield (Mr. Concannon, takes the right attitude towards that car.
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of my hon. Friend's reply, I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment of the House.

    Political Institutions
    Mr. Lathamasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he envisages making any early progress in evolving new political institutions in the Province; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. Michael McNair-Wilsonasked the under Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he plans any administrative changes in the governing of the Province.
    Mr. Humphrey Atkins: The Government continue to seek a transfer of significant powers to locally elected representatives on a basis acceptable to both sides of the community. However, in the present absence of agreement among the Northern Ireland political parties on how those powers should be exercised, I am considering how to improve the existing administrative arrangements for the government of the Province.
    Mr. Latham: Following the unsuccessful White Paper initiative, is my right hon. Friend still trying to break the log jam of resentment and suspicion about this matter and to move to a better structure of government in Northern Ireland? Or has he given up initiatives in despair and is settling down to a long period of indefinite direct rule?
    Mr. Atkins: No, Sir. The Government have not given up in despair. I propose to remain in close touch with party leaders in Northern Ireland. A long-term answer can come only if the parties in Northern Ireland reach agreement on how the country should be governed and how power could be exercised by locally elected people.
    Mr. McNair-Wilson: Can my right hon. Friend see any overriding reason why the current proportion of elected representatives on area boards should not be expanded from their current one-third of the boards?
    Mr. Atkins: That matter, and a variety of other matters connected with the governing of the Province are currently engaging my attention.
    Mr. James A. Dunn: Does the Secretary of State realise that, unless he solves the problems related to security, the prospect of changing events in the Province are very much diminished. Unless he treats with an equal hand not only the IRA but other terrorist organisations, he will find that faith in his proposals will diminish considerably.
    Mr. Atkins: Of course, the security position bears very much upon the matter. That is why I am glad to note that
    976
    for a number of years the level of violence has been steadily diminishing—which is what everybody wants. It is part of the Government's business to be as even-handed as possible.
    Mr. Fitt: Will the Secretary of State be totally honest with the House and say that the search for new political institutions in Northern Ireland has come to a full stop, pending the outcome of the talks now taking place between this Government and the Government of the Republic? Will he confirm that there is no possibility of creating new political institutions in advance of the outcome of those talks? Will he take it from me, in all sincerity, that his Government, and especially the Prime Minister, need to create a great deal more confidence in Northern Ireland that nothing underhand is taking place in the talks? Does he appreciate that the Opposition should be made fully aware of what is happening on political progress in Northern Ireland? Nothing underhand must be done that will support the attitude expressed by the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley).
    Mr. Atkins: I would not say that the search for a way forward in improving the government of the Province has come to a full stop. A comma might be more appropriate. I sincerely hope that discussions between this Government and the Government of the Republic will continue on a wide variety of matters for a long time. I hope those discussions will not come to an end, but it would be wrong to say that we should not seek a way forward until they have come to an end.
    Mr. Kilfedder: On humanitarian grounds, will the right hon. Gentleman bring forward the date of the local government election on 20 May by at least two months? In that way, the political shenanigans and the slanging match between the Democratic Unionist Party and the Official Unionist Party will cause the least possible damage to Ulster and its people.
    Mr. Atkins: I had not thought of that idea. I take note of what the hon. Gentleman has said. I dare say that we shall hear the hon. Gentleman's voice between now and 20 May.
    Mr. McCusker: Will the Secretary of State confirm that most of the many people whom he meets as he travels throughout the Province want nothing other than to be governed as their fellow citizens are governed in the rest of the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Atkins: That view is held by a number of people, but I am not in a position to say that I believe it to be the majority view.

    Maze Prison
    Mr. Stephen Rossasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about the continuing unrest in Maze prison.
    Mr. Stanbrookasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the prisoners who are refusing to comply with prison rules at Maze prison.
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Michael Alison): The dirty protest in support of the campaign for political status is continuing. There are at

    977
    present 405 prisoners involved, 61 fewer than when the Maze hunger strike ended on 18 December and 100 fewer than the peak number reached early in the hunger strike.
    As my right hon. Friend has already told the House, we had hoped that the ending of the hunger strikes would be followed by the ending of all the protests in the prisons. However, the process of return to normality broke down on 27 January, when 96 prisoners who were in clean, furnished cells started to damage the cells and to break up the furniture. It had become clear the previous weekend that the prisoners were seeking a regime that was different from the normal regime which my right hon. Friend described in his statement of 4 December.
    On 5 February there was an announcement, said to be on behalf of the protesting prisoners, that a further hunger strike would begin on 1 March, in support of their claim to be treated as political prisoners.
    I very much regret that the prisoners appear to have decided to resort to this kind of action a second time. The Government have declared the principles by which they are guided. It is these principles that the prisoners are once again challenging. We have shown once that we shall not compromise on them, and shall, if we must, do so again. I find it difficult to believe that the prisoners do not understand this.
    Mr. Ross: Will the Minister accept that I congratulate the Northern Ireland Office on the promptness of its publicity in response to claims emanating from the Maze prison? Last week I was in the United States of America and I found that to be the case. Does anyone who holds a responsible opinion, particularly in the Catholic Church, support the prisoners' contention that they were tricked into a settlement when they called off the hunger strike in late December?
    Mr. Allison: I know of no individual who has made any such claim. I have never heard such a claim articulated in any rational or meaningful form
    Mr. Stanbrook: Will my hon. Friend resist any temptation to make any progressive and humane reforms in the prison administration of Northern Ireland until the present indiscipline has come to an end?
    Mr. Alison: No. The Government will not be influenced against pursuing rational and proper courses by the illegal activities of prisoners.
    Mr. J. Enoch Powell: How can the Government hope for a return to normality in the Maze prison, when they continue to accord special category status to several hundred prisoners in defiance of their own principle that such status is unjustified and unacceptable?
    Mr. Alison: In principle, special category status was abolished five years ago. The Government have accelerated the practice of phasing it out. That demonstrates clearly the Government's rejection of the concept of special category status. As long ago as 1975 a previous Secretary of State established the practice of leaving sentenced prisoners to serve out their time in the conditions under which they had embarked on them. A retrospective alteration of those terms gives rise to far wider considerations, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister indicated to the right hon. Gentleman in her reply to him on 15 February.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: Will my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State accept my assurance that he will receive
    978
    the same firm support from this House that he enjoyed before, and that we very much welcome his constant stand? Should not my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State consult his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary so that prison reforms in every part of the United Kingdom can march together?
    Mr. Alison: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend for his assurance—which I am sure is valid—that the House completely supports the maintenance of the rule of law and the authority of the lawfully elected Government in the face of violence. As regards my hon. Friend's second question, there is a special situation in Northern Ireland because many young prisoners are serving very long sentences. To some extent, that distinguishes Northern Ireland from the rest of the British Isles.

    Prime Minister (Engagements)
    Ql. Mr. Meacherasked the Prime Minister, if she will list her official engagements for 12 February.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be having further meetings later today, including one with the Prime Minister of Mauritius. This evening I shall preside at a dinner given in his honour.
    Mr. Meacher: Why does the Prime Minister continue to refuse to reflate on the ground that it always leads to worse inflation, when in fact all previous reflations—with the exception of the disastrous Barber reflation—have not led to a surge of inflation or to higher unemployment? Does not the right hon. Lady see that what the country desperately needs now is not an ever greater squeeze on credit leading to ever-increasing unemployment, but an expansion of credit provided that such expansion is channelled into public as well as private investment, that would cut unemployment without being inflationary.
    The Prime Minister: If we were to reflate on top of the present level of inflation it would lead to hyperinflation and unemployment. There is no doubt about that.
    Mr. David Steel: Will the Prime Minister reconsider the cost of unemployment that she gave in her speech last Thursday? This morning, an article in The Times "Business News" suggested that the total direct and indirect cost to the Government of unemployment-based on Treasury figures—was £5,000 per worker.
    The Prime Minister: With respect to the right hon. Gentleman the two things are wholly different. I gave the cost of unemployment benefit coupled with social security benefit. Those figures are accurate. The right hon. Gentleman has given figures that show how the Exchequer would benefit if everyone were in work. If everyone were in work, producing goods and services that some one else could buy without subsidy, there would be no problem.
    Mr. Michael Hamilton: As the Leader of the Opposition was good enough to send a message of good will and congratulations last week to the Salisbury branch of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, will the Prime Minister find time today to send a similar message of good will and congratulations to the Duke of Edinburgh, on his outstanding speech on Monday?
    The Prime Minister: I am sure that in elevated situations people share the Government's thoughts that, although we wish nuclear weapons had never been invented, the potential aggressor has a large stock, and a particularly great supply of SS20s. Any Government who wish to defend their people must ensure that there are sufficient nuclear weapons to deter an aggressor.
    Mr. Foot: Might it not be the case that the late Lord Louis Mountbatten knew even more about war and nuclear weapons than the Duke of Edinburgh? Might I put another question to the right hon. Lady? Since the Leader of the House stated in a notable speech that the Government are in the right frame of mind to recognise reality and to acknowledge mistakes, will the right hon. Lady reconsider the serious reply that she gave me on Tuesday about the coal industry? Does she not accept that she appeared to wash her hands of the whole issue? Will she not look afresh at the matter, recognise the seriousness of the situation, and promise that the Government will intervene?
    The Prime Minister: With regard to the three matters that the right hon. Gentleman has raised, the late Lord Louis Mountbatten was never a unilateralist, nor would he ever have been. He had too much regard for the liberties of this country to lay down any weapons unilaterally. With regard to the speech by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, I wholly agree that there is excellent stuff in it. For example
    "An attack on inflation is an attack on unemployment, and the most enduring safeguard against unemployment would be the elimination of inflation."
    Mr. Foot: Go on.
    The Prime Minister: I could go on—it is such a marvellous speech. The right hon. Gentleman invites me to go on. I am ready to accept that invitation.
    "We must not abandon the long-term strategic approach in which we believe,"
    and so on.
    With regard to the third part of the right hon. Gentleman's question, I gave him the figures—[Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman asked three questions, and I intend to answer three questions. It is the Government's duty to negotiate with the chairman of the National Coal Board the amount of money for the year. This year it is £834 million. Next year it will be £882 million. Those considerable sums are paid on top of the prices paid for coal and they are sums which give coal an excellent future.
    Mr. Foot: Is the right hon. Lady seriously saying that in this critical situation she will refuse to call the tripartite meetings which we had on the coal industry and which saved the coal industry following the experiences of 1974? When we came in then, we had to call those tripartite discussions to deal with the matter. That is what the right hon. Lady will have to do on this occasion. Will she not decide to do it now instead of being forced to do it later?
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir, and I am not forced to do many things.
    Mr. Mellor: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the adoption by the Labour Party of unilateral disarmament, the increasing number of Labour Back Benchers who seem to be apologists for Soviet imperialism and the increasing
    980
    number of Trotskyists being adopted to fight GLC and parliamentary seats under the Labour Party banner pose one of the greatest threats to democracy in Britain today?
    The Prime Minister: I wholly agree with my hon. Friend. I am sorry that the Labour Party will not be ready to defend the benefits which it enjoys under democracy.
    Mr. Altonasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 12 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentlemen to the reply which I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Alton: Has the right hon. Lady had time to read The Times report this morning that the Government intend to drop their new sickness benefit scheme? Is that the case? Does she realise that if it is, the news will be received with great joy by many small businesses?
    The Prime Minister: The answer is "No". It will not appear in a Bill which is due to appear immediately. New proposals have arisen which match more closely the sums which will be paid out under the scheme with the amounts which would be returned under the scheme and we are considering those further before putting them into legislative form.
    Mr. Tapsell: Does anyone think that Poland would today be facing a serious threat of invasion by Russian forces if it possessed its own independent nuclear deterrent?
    The Prime Minister: I think that the answer must be "No". I must make it quite clear that, while the policy of unilateralism may be espoused on the Opposition side of the House, it is totally and utterly rejected on this side.
    Mr. Wigley: Will the Prime Minister find time today to read again the report of the Silver Jubilee Committee on Access for Disabled People, particularly the main recommendation that there should be legislation to strengthen the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970? Will she undertake that the Government will facilitate such legislation?
    The Prime Minister: I cannot undertake to facilitate any extra legislation at the moment. I can only say that I am anxious that local authorities should provide access for the disabled, and I congratulate my own local authority on its record in this respect.
    Sir William Clark: Will my right hon. Friend find time today to look again at the Scott report? Does she agree that there is a glaring unfairness between public and private pensions, because, despite what the Scott report says, private pension schemes cannot possibly afford to fund inflation-proofed pensions?
    The Prime Minister: I wholly agree with my hon. Friend that private pension schemes could not possibly afford inflation-proofed pensions on the scale on which they are provided for the public service. I hope that we shall have time to discuss the Scott report thoroughly. It suggested at one point that the Government could provide a cut-off point for index linking, but no one has thought to pursue that for the time being until matters are further discussed in this House.
    Mr. Gordon Wilsonasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 12 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply which I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Wilson: Will the Prime Minister take time today to study closely the havoc which the closure of the Linwood car factory will cause to the economy of Scotland? Does she recall that when she was elected it was pointed out that her Government represented the South and the South only? Will she therefore look at what has happened in the car industry, which has been supported by the Government through British Leyland and allowed to continue at Coventry while the Scottish car industry has been smashed into the ground?
    The Prime Minister: Scotland has a number of opportunities in connection with the oil industry which are not available elsewhere. Although I share the hon. Gentleman's concern about the closure at Linwood, I doubt very much whether the people there would begrudge their fellow car workers a reasonable future in the plant at Ryton.
    Mr. Anthony Grant: Will my right hon. Friend find time today to consider relations between Britain and Canada? Is she aware that the Canadian Prime Minister is insisting publicly that she undertook to impose a three-line Whip to put through this House his proposals on patriation of the constitution? Will she confirm that that is not correct? Will she also confirm the view of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs that the duty of this House is to consider the wishes of the Canadian people as a whole and not the diktat of Mr. Trudeau?
    The Prime Minister: Three-line Whips or any other Whipping are not decided upon until some 10 days before the business of the House, when we know exactly what the position is and exactly what the request is that we may have to honour. I wholly confirm what I have said previously on this matter. We have not received any request from the Canadian Government. When we receive a request, I believe that it is our duty to deal with it as expeditiously as possible.
    Mr. Parry: When the Prime Minister meets the Prime Minister of Mauritius later today, will she discuss with him the implications and the possible effect that the proposed closure of the Tate and Lyle factory will have upon ACP countries? Will she also reconsider her decision about meeting an all-party parliamentary delegation to discuss this matter, because we all believe that a Government initiative could save the refinery?
    The Prime Minister: I fully expect that the Prime Minister of Mauritius will raise the question of sugar refining, although I understand that an undertaking has been given to refine most of the sugar under the ACP agreements. I believe that the hon. Gentleman represents the constituency in which the Tate and Lyle factory is found. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food flew back from Brussels to receive a delegation. I do not think that I can duplicate his receiving that delegation. I will always see the hon. Member himself in whose constituency a factory closure is about to occur.
    Mr. Speaker: Mr. Allan Stewart.
    Mr. Foot—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I have already called the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, East (Mr. Stewart). I shall call the Leader of the Opposition afterwards.
    Mr. Allan Stewart: With regard to Linwood, will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Secretary of State and Department of Industry will now do everything possible to put to Nissan-Datsun the fact that it could be in that company's best commercial interests to reconsider going to a green field site and intend to build on the site at Linwood, using the skilled work force there?
    The Prime Minister: Linwood is, of course, located in my hon. Friend's constituency. I understand that Nissan is studying the feasibility of coming to a green field site in this country. I do not think that there is any possibility of dissuading it from that, because that is what it wants.
    Mr. Foot: I thank the right hon. Lady for the generous reply which she made a few minutes ago. Will she be dealing with the correspondence herself, or will some Minister be put in charge of these requests? Will she undertake to publish each week in the Official Report the requests from all my hon. Friends to visit the factories that are due to close? May I immediately request to her to come and look at the closures in my own constituency? Will she publish her diary in the next week?
    The Prime Minister: As usual, the right hon. Gentleman has got it wrong. I said that I would see the Member of a constituency in which a main factory closure occurs. A large delegation must always go to the Minister concerned, just as the main delegation went to see my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I personally shall see the Member. I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman greets such a courtesy so churlishly.

    Royal Family (Speech References)
    Mr. James Lamond: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I recall that some years ago, when I asked a question at Prime Minister's Question Time about a speech made by the Duke of Edinburgh, you quite correctly ruled that such a question was not permitted if it was critical in any way. Does that ruling still stand? Today there was a question about a speech by the Duke of Edinburgh, which brought a response from the Prime Minister. Both the question and the reply were highly complimentary, because, as it happens, what the Duke of Edinburgh said seems to agree with Tory policy. Does not that place those of us who wish to put a contrary view about a speech by the Duke of Edinburgh—which by implication would be critical—at a disadvantage, under the rules of House? Should not that point be looked at?
    Mr. Speaker: The whole House is aware that I am its servant. I do my best to ensure that the rules of the House are observed. One of our fundamental rules is that any reference to a member of the Royal Family must be couched in courteous terms.
    Dr. M. S. Miller: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for me to suggest that I could apply my medical services to the Secretary of State for Scotland, who was not present today or yesterday to answer questions—?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not want to enter into a discussion on private medicine today.

Business of the House
Mr. Speaker: Business Statement.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Paymaster General and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Francis Pym): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 16 FEBRUARY—Until 7 o'clock, Private Members' motions.
Second Reading of the Gas Levy Bill.
TUESDAY 17 FEBRUARY—Supply [9th Allotted Day]: Debate on an Opposition motion on the absence of effective Government action to prevent the threatened closure of Talbot Linwood, until about 7 o'clock.
Debate on an Opposition motion on EEC sugar proposals, their effect on employment in United Kingdom refineries and on the economies of developing countries. [EEC document 10009/80 will be relevant]
WEDNESDAY 18 FEBRUARY—Proceedings on the Redundancy Fund Bill and on the Iron and Steel (Borrowing Powers) Bill.
Motions on Northern Ireland orders on the Agricultural Trust and on museums.
THURSDAY 19 FEBRUARY—Remaining stages of the Water Bill.
Proceedings on the House of Commons Members' Fund and Parliamentary Pensions Bill.
Motions on Members' salaries and pensions.
FRIDAY 20 FEBRUARY—Private Members' Bills.
MONDAY 23 FEBRUARY—Supply [10th Allotted Day]: Subject for debate to be announced.
[Debate on European Community Document relating to sugar:
The relevant report of the European Legislation Committee is the 2nd Report, Session 1980–81 H/C 32 paragraph 3.]
Mr. Foot: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that the proposed debates for next week were drawn up before the statement from the Prime Minister earlier this afternoon about the coal industry? In our view that was an extremely serious statement, because she seemed to indicate that there was to be no attempt by the Government to alter their attitude to the coal industry and the provisions of the Coal Industry Act, which recently went through the House. Therefore, will the right hon. Gentleman consider rearranging the business for next week, or at any rate soon in the week after, so that we may have a full-scale debate on the coal industry?
In view of the right hon. Gentleman's own speech yesterday, does not he think that we should hold such a debate before the disaster happens, rather than afterwards? Does not he agree that what the Prime Minister said today is a serious declaration, which could lead to serious consequences in the coal industry? I urge him to consider rearranging the business so that we may have a full day's debate, in Government time, on the coal industry crisis.
Mr. Pym: It is right that I should consider what the right hon. Gentleman has asked for. In all frankness, I should point out that I do not think that it would be appropriate to rearrange next week's business. The right hon. Gentleman asked for a debate next week or the week after. I cannot give a commitment in that respect, because policy considerations arise, but I shall take account of his representations for a debate on the coal industry.
984
Obviously, that is a suitable subject for a Supply day debate, but I take note of what the right hon. Gentleman said.
Mr. Geoffrey Rippon: I warmly congratulate my right hon. Friend on the speech that he made yesterday, with its recognition that tactical changes in policy may be necessary and desirable from time to time. In that spirit of flexibility and common sense, has his attention been drawn to early-day motion 169 standing in my name and that of 90 right hon. and hon. Members, relating to the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries (Amendment) Bill?
[That this House urges Her Majesty's Government to facilitate the passage of the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries (Amendment) Bill which is designed to remedy the injustice done to the former owners of the assets nationalised by the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Act 1977 by the payment of grossly inadequate compensation and to propose more equitable arrangements.]
Will he facilitate the passage of that measure, bearing in mind that it is designed to remedy what Ministers themselves have described as "a gross injustice"?
Mr. Pym: I am grateful for what my right hon. and learned Friend said at the beginning of his remarks. I have noticed the early-day motion to which he referred and I recognise its importance, as well as the objective of my right hon. and learned Friend and other of my hon. Friends in bringing forward the Bill. The Government's view is that the basis of compensation for the nationalisation in 1977 of companies in the aerospace and shipbuilding industries should remain undisturbed, but I shall take note of what my right hon. and learned Friend said.
Mr. Alfred Dubs: Although renewal of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act is not on next week's business, I understand that it will soon come before the House. Will the Leader of the House consider allowing hon. Members more time to debate the renewal of this legislation, rather than slotting it in late at night for a mere one and a half hours?
Mr. Pym: I note what the hon. Member asks for.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does my right hon. Friend agree that foreign affairs can have a considerable impact on our country? Will he therefore arrange a debate on foreign affairs prior to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs going to the United States, so that hon. Members on the Conservative Benches will be able to express their views about the serious problem in Palestine and the need to recognise the problems of the Palestinian people?
Mr. Pym: As I said last week, I am looking for an opportunity to have a foreign affairs debate. I must tell my hon. Friend that I am afraid that I cannot arrange it before the visit to the United States of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, but I am looking for a subsequent opportunity, knowing that the House would like such a debate.
Mr. John Silkin: Will the Leader of the House take steps to ensure that, so far as possible, it is the senior Minister of a Department who makes statements in the House on matters that involve hundreds of millions of pounds, or thousands of jobs? I recall that during the

985
period of office of the Labour Administration, my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) and I came back to the House to make statements. I am glad to see the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food here. We believed—as I think hon. Members believed—that our duty was first and foremost to the House of Commons.
Mr. Pym: That is absolutely true. All my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench take the same view. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland was occupied in a very hard day of negotiations for the fishing industry in Scotland. It seemed appropriate that a Scottish Minister should make the statement. There was also another statement yesterday, made, it is true, by the Minister of State when the Secretary of State was present. I do not think that it is right to say that every statement should be made by the Secretary of State.
The statement was about the Iron and Steel (Borrowing Powers) Bill, and it seemed appropriate for a Minister of State to make the statement and to share some of the load. I agree that the Secretary of State was present. He will make the major statements. It was stated yesterday that he will make the major statement on steel, when it comes. We shall follow that pattern, but it would be a departure from the practice of the House if the view were taken that no one except the Secretary of State, or the most senior Minister of a Department, could make a statement. On occasions the House might find itself in real difficulty. When the senior Minister was not available we would have to find someone else in any case. I hope that we can approach the matter on a common-sense basis. It is the desire that Ministers should treat the House with the appropriate courtesy, and I think that the right hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that that is the practice.
Mr. Silkin: Yes. On yesterday's showing, however, the Secretary of State for Industry was sitting on the Front Bench. I doubt whether the House would regard an increase of £500 million as being a minor matter. I have a feeling that most hon. Members would consider it a major matter.
I have never noticed any reluctance on the part of German or French Ministers, when they have an important engagement in their own capitals, to return to address their Parliaments.
Mr. Pym: It is a matter of judgment. Everyone is aware of the protracted negotiations taking place in regard to the fishing industry. It was thought helpful for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland to be involved in them. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that an extra £500 million of borrowing powers is a lot, but I remind him that one of his hon. Friends thought it a small sum. I disagree with his hon. Friend. It is a matter of judgment. We took the view that on this occasion it was appropriate for that load within the Department to be shared in the way that it was shared, but I take note of the right hon. Gentleman's representations.
Mr. Robert Adley: Has my right hon. Friend read about, or noticed, the understandable fuss that has arisen over the farcical situation in Basingstoke, where a lady who let her house
986
for a short period came back and was unable to re-enter it? Is he aware that this is a by-product of the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act, introduced with well-meaning vigour under the Lib-Lab pact, which many people are prepared to use unscrupulously as a cheats' charter? In view of commitments by the Secretary of State for the Environment to reconsider this legislation, will my right hon. Friend invite the Secretary of State, or one of his Ministers, to report to the House next week on the progress that is being made, so that we may know where we stand?
Mr. Pym: I am sorry to hear of the difficulties being encountered by the lady in Basingstoke. I will convey to my right hon. Friend what my hon. Friend said.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: The Leader of the House will no doubt recollect hearing the Prime Minister say that any hon. Member who has a factory closure in his constituency can arrange to see her. As, I assume, hundreds of hon. Members on both sides will be queuing up, will the Prime Minister make a statement next week explaining how hon. Members should get in the queue, so that certain people do not get preference, and so that those who are first can be accommodated when they go to discuss the closure of factories in their constituencies?
Mr. PymMy right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, in saying what she did, was showing the most extreme courtesy. I have no doubt that hon. Members will respect the way in which she said it and enable it to be regarded as a practical and sensible proposition.
Mr. Christopher Murphy: I recognise my right hon. Friend's appreciation of the tenets of common sense, as recently stated. Does he agree that in the coming week a statement should be made by the Government with regard to the proposal by British Telecom to paint our telephone boxes yellow—which is ridiculous in terms of the waste of taxpayers' money and the traditions of this country?
Mr. Pym: That is a matter for British Telecom.
Mr. Douglas Jay: Should not the House debate next week the Government's new economic policy, announced by the right hon. Gentleman himself yesterday to the Putney Conservatives?
Mr. Pym: I do not wish to burden the right hon. Gentleman. If he cares to read the speech he will find that what he says is not accurate.
Mr. Ivan Lawrence: Will my right hon. Friend kindly remind the House what were to be the advantages of the new monster-size Hansard? If it has been found that there are none, will he consider restoring it to its former size?
Mr. Pym: It is not for me to do that. The House had a proposition before it and considered it over a long period. It eventually came to a conclusion. I must advise the House that if it were thought that there might now be a change, that would seem to me not a wise course. It would be extremely expensive.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen early-day motion 179, on used textile machinery exports:
[That this House deplores the failure of the Government to act to arrest the export of used textile and other

987
machinery by companies who are reducing their domestic operations due to the recession; and demands that the Government intervenes to prevent the export of the manufacturing base of the British economy.]
Will he provide Government time for a discussion of that motion, signed by over 200 hon. Members? Within eight hours of being placed on the Order Paper it had been signed by an unprecedented 180 hon. Members. Will he give time next week?
Mr. Pym: I appreciate the importance of what the hon. Gentleman asks, but I am afraid that I cannot find time for that business next week, in Government time.
Mr. Kenneth Lewis: In answer to a question today my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister seemed to indicate that there would be no action to restrain the index-linking of public service pensions before a debate took place on the Scott report. Will my right hon. Friend promise an early debate on the report if that is the situation? Better still, there should be no debate on that report, and the Government should take action and reduce the linking of public sector pensions to the 6 per cent. wage norm in the public sector.
Mr. Pym: I feel sure that the House will want to debate this important report and the issues that lie behind it. I would have thought that there was a lot to be said for having a considerable degree of public debate before a debate takes place in the House. I note what my hon. Friend requests.
Mr. loan Evans: Will the right hon. Gentleman look again at the suggestion that there should be a statement by the Government, or an early debate, on closures in the coal industry? There have already been massive steel closures in South Wales, where unemployment is reminiscent of the situation in the 1930s. Whole communities are waiting for news about whether their pits are to be closed, when such a decision is completely unnecessary. Will there be an early debate on the issue?
Mr. Pym: I appreciate fully the importance of what has happened in the coal industry. Responsibility for the industry is pre-eminently a matter for the National Coal Board, but I have noted the desire for a debate. We shall have to consider how that can be arranged.
Mr. Tony Marlow: Since it appears that public pressure may well knock on the head British Telecom's daft scheme for painting our telephone boxes yellow, will my right hon. Friend bring forward an early debate on the Second Reading of the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Parris), which would prevent the petrol monopolies from stealing the gallon and force-feeding us litres, from the fourth quarter of this year?
Mr. Pym: I am sorry to disappoint my hon. Friend, but I do not think that I can find Government time for that Bill.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: As the Leader of the House is seemingly the Minister in charge of the rotating Tory policy, and as he has now put himself in charge of the necessary adjustments to prevent that policy going round in complete circles, will he assure us that he will now pay attention to the question of pit closures and the future of the coal industry? Is he aware that the Government are mainly responsible for the threat to about 50 pits because of the way in which they have run down
988
many of the factories that hitherto burnt coal? Is he further aware that those pits are now victims of the recession, despite high productivity levels during the past two years? Will he now ensure that there is an early debate, before the various mining unions and the Coal Board meet Ministers, so that the House can shed more light on this seeming confusion?
Mr. Pym: The hon. Gentleman forgets the scale of closures that took place under earlier Administrations, including a Labour Government. I have noted what the hon. Gentleman said.
Mr. David Crouch: Is my right hon. Friend aware that he said this afternoon that the question of red or yellow telephone boxes is a matter for British Telecom and that the question of closures in the coal industry is a matter for the National Coal Board? Will he assure me that the House will have a say in matters concerning nationalised industries? Their activities are determined by what the House of Commons thinks.
Mr. Pym: I note what my hon. Friend says. These matters are debated from time to time, and I have noted the particular interest that has been expressed today.
Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones: Is the Minister aware that the National Insurance Advisory Committee's report on disabled housewives' non-contributory benefits has now been before the DHSS for a considerable time? Will he give a firm undertaking to the House that we shall debate any changes in those benefits before decisions are made outside?
Mr. Pym: I cannot give that undertaking, but I shall discuss the matter with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services.
Mr. Harry Ewing: May I press the Leader of the House once again on the need for a debate on the proposed closure of Callendar Park and Hamilton colleges of education? Is he aware that for the past six or seven months we have consistently asked questions, the Opposition have given up their time in the Scottish Grand Committee, the Government were defeated in the Scottish Grand Committee, and the Minister is now threatening to close these colleges without further consultation with the governors? As a good parliamentarian, does not the Leader of the House think that it is the Government's responsibility to test the matter on the Floor of the House—or does he think that we should write to the Prime Minister and request a meeting about these colleges? Is he aware that we could relieve her of that burden by having a debate on the Floor of the House?
Mr. Pym: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's strength of feeling on this matter, because he has raised it in two or three successive weeks. However, with regret, I have nothing to add to the reply that I gave last week.
Mr. Leslie Spriggs: Is the Leader of the House aware that the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) about the mining industry, with his request for a debate about the proposed closure of a number of pits, is a matter for the House, because at least £800 million of public money is invested in the British mining industry? In view of that, will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider his reply and give the House an opportunity to debate any proposals that the National Coal Board may make on the closure of pits?
Mr. Pym: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's comments. It would be possible to debate this matter in Supply time as well as in Government time. It would obviously be a suitable subject to be debated on a Supply day, although I am not necessarily suggesting that. I note the hon. Gentleman's representation.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. There are seven hon. Members who wish to speak. If questions are brief I can call all of them, but I do not propose to go much beyond 4 o'clock before we move on to the statement.
Mr. Tom McNally: Will the Leader of the House pledge an early debate on the unanimous report of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, which seeks to put backbone into the Government's policy on import penetration? Is he aware that Monday would be a good day, because that is the day on which textile workers will lobby the House on that matter?
Mr. Pym: I do not think that I can alter the business for next Monday, but I note the hon. Gentleman's request.
Dr. M. S. Miller:Reverting to the question by my hon. Friends the Members for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and St. Helens (Mr. Spriggs), may I ask what is the difference between the coal mining industry and butter within the Common Market, in that we can have butter mountains within the EEC but we cannot have coal mountains? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that coal is just as important a commodity as butter?
Mr. Pym: The stock of coal is something close to a mountain, and at present it is another anxiety within the industry.
Mr. Barry Sheerman: May I ask the Leader of the House to consider urgently a debate on regional policy, which is a priority for Labour Members? Is he aware that whereas his hon. Friends may be obsessed with the colour of telephone boxes and the size of the Official Report, we are concerned that in 20 months of this Government conditions in the regions have deteriorated to such an extent that we need a reassessment of regional policy, especially as it affects areas such as Yorkshire and Humberside?
Mr. Pym: Again, that is a suitable subject for a Supply day, when the hon. Gentleman could put forward his proposals. It could also be debated in Government time, but the hon. Gentleman knows that the number of days are limited, and we have to fit in Government business.
Mr. Stanley Newens: Will the Leader of the House take note that Labour Members as well as Conservative Members think that it is necessary to find time at the earliest possible opportunity for a debate on foreign affairs? Is he aware that in view of the policies of the new American Administration on Central America, Nicaragua, El Salvador, the problems of Cyprus, and so on, there is an enormous case for giving the House an opportunity to debate those issues?
Mr. Pym: I note the hon. Gentleman's remarks and I hope that before very long we shall be able to find an opportunity for such a debate. The number of foreign affair subjects raised indicates the interest of the House and the extent of the debate that might take place. I shall look for an opportunity as soon as possible.
Mr. Frank Hooley: Since the Prime Minister has often declared support for open government, may I ask the Leader of the House when the Government will bring forward their Freedom of Information Bill? Is he aware that if they require help in drafting such a Bill I shall be ready to assist?
Mr. Pym: That is a matter that we might be prepared to consider, but we have no plans to bring forward such a Bill at the moment.
Mr. George Robertson: Has the right hon. Gentleman read early-day motion 11, which gives the testimony of some of his hon. Friends to the value of a 10-college system of teacher training in Scotland?
[That this House recalls the assurances and pledges given three years ago to the colleges of education in Scotland by Conservative hon. Members, and calls upon the same hon. Members now in Government to re-read their own and their colleagues' speeches, and in particular the following, and to do now what they promised so confidently and pursuasively then:
"I think sometimes it's better not to merge or to destroy colleges, but to say all right we'll keep them all going because the more widely they are distributed, the more chance people who live near them have to go and train at them and still live at home."—The Prime Minister, 4 June 1977, in a Party Political Broadcast.
"We have come to the stage where we have enough teachers and all the Government can do is to cut matters back to keep things as they are. It is truly disastrous and I hope they will think again about it."—right hon. Member for Ayr Burghs, 17 February 1977.
"It follows that we do not accept that the proper reaction to lower population projection and the need to cut public expenditure is for the Secretary of State to wield a butcher's axe on the colleges of education.
"… We can only conclude that Ministers have chosen to chop smaller colleges purely for financial reasons and without proper consideration of the educational consequences of their action."—hon. Member for Edinburgh, North, 17 February 1977.
"It is not correct for the Government to argue that the closure of colleges is the proper or appropriate response to this difficulty."—hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands, 17 February 1977.
"If the Secretary of State wishes to convince the Scots that some harsh reforms are necessary, the costings must be made and must be made public. It is no use making decisions before making costings, because if the decisions are wrong they cannot be put right later. The costings and the feasibility study must be done first."—hon. Member for Edinburgh, West, 15 March 1977.
"The major failure of this Government has been their refusal to give any indication of the financial implications … We are entitled to know what the costs of the proposed closures are."—hon. Member for Dumfries, 5 April 1977.
"It is simply a cold, savage statistical exercise in butchery to reduce the number of colleges in Scotland from 10 to six and make substantial cuts in the number of college lecturers."—17 February 1977.
"The Opposition doubt whether it will be a real benefit to Scottish education to concentrate teacher training essentially in big colleges in the cities. I think

991
that there is ample evidence that the alternative proposal of reducing the number of students at the major colleges and keeping going those with special and unique geographical contributions to make would probably be better."—17 February 1977.]
If the right hon. Gentleman continues to tell the House that it cannot have a debate in Government time, will he tell the House and the people of Scotland why what was good enough in 1977, when his hon. Friends were in Opposition, is not good enough now that they are in power?
Mr. Pym: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has made the position clear to the House.
Mr. John Maxton: In the light of his disappointing answers to my hon. Friends the Members for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) and Stirling, Falkirk and Grangemouth (Mr. Ewing), will the Leader of the House at least ensure that there is a debate on Scottish affairs in general, especially in view of the gross incompetence that the Secretary of State has shown in handling the closure of the colleges, the way in which it appears that he has caved in so readily on the closure of Linwood, and the enormous economic problems that face the whole of Scotland?
Mr. Pym: I cannot respond to that, but I note that there is business relating to education in Scotland on the Order Paper today—business that is not totally unrelated to the issues that have been raised with me. At present I have no plans for a Scottish day. Not long ago we had a Welsh day. This Government have been more generous in providing time for debates of that sort than were the previous Government. We do our best.

European Community (Fisheries Ministers' Meeting)
The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Peter Walker): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement about the Council of Fisheries Ministers in Brussels on 9 to 11 February.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, my hon. Friend the Minister of State in my Department and I represented the United Kingdom at the meeting of the Council of Fisheries Ministers which lasted from 9 to 11 February. In spite of intensive and sustained negotiations, the Council failed to reach agreement on a revised common fisheries policy. Discussions will be resumed on 9–10 March.
In the course of the three days, my right hon. Friend, my hon. Friend and I were able to have discussions with representatives of the industry on the problems which they are currently experiencing. The Government have already announced their decision to bring forward the review of the fishing industry's financial position. The Government have now fixed a meeting with the industry for next Tuesday, 17 February.
The object of the meeting will be to receive from the industry an analysis of its current financial position and to listen to any constructive suggestions it wishes to make. The analysis and the suggestions will then be urgently considered by the Government.
We also discussed the adverse effects of cheap fish imports, and it has been agreed that a team of industry
992
representatives and Government officials will immediately examine all allegations of illegal and unfair imports of fish.
During the Council meeting, we brought to the attention of the Commission the fact that the system operating to prevent cheap imports from entering our market from third countries was not working effectively. We have obtained a firm undertaking from the Commissioner that he will urgently examine the problem in order to make the system more effective.
Mr. Roy Mason: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his statement. Is he aware that he will continue to get our backing as long as he stands firm within the Council of Ministers for the British fisheries proposals, as agreed by all the industry and by this House of Parliament?
It would appear that some progress is being made, especially on conservation, on inspection and on total allowable catches, but is the Minister aware that, in spite of French intransigence, he must still stand firm on two of the cardinal points—the 12-mile exclusive belt and our dominant preference up to 50 miles? During the course of the past three days he has resisted the German agreement with the Canadians, the Danes on the Faroes, and the French on fishing up to our beaches. He is right to hold up these agreements until we have managed to obtain a satisfactory package.
Will the Minister say what proposals were put forward by the EEC on financial aid to the industry—I understand that these were discussed—and also how the United Kingdom might be assisted?
Meantime, at home, apart from the committee of inquiry by the industry and Government to establish the fiddles in cheap fish imports, what real action has the Minister in mind now to stop cheap fish imports? He has not given an indication to the House as to how long it will take the Commissioner to examine this matter. What, therefore, has he in mind about doing something positive now?
Will all sections of the industry be represented on the committee of inquiry? There are differences of view being expressed by those in the deep-sea fleet and the inshore fishermen.
Finally, in view of the further delay in regard to the common fisheries policy, may we expect a statement next week on financial aid to the industry?
Mr. Walker: One of the strengths in the negotiations is the basic unity between the Government, the industry and the House of Commons as a whole. Therefore, I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his remarks.
At every stage and every step and in every counter proposal in Brussels, we have the representatives of the industry in to discuss them, and we agree our tactical position and our major objective. That policy will continue until we reach a final agreement.
With regard to the Canadian agreements and the Faroes, the right hon. Gentleman will understand that I regretted that the decision that we had to make on the Canadian agreement has had an adverse effect on the German fleet, which was not my objective. But the whole Community must understand that there is no way in which Britain can accept an agreement which will result in an increase of cheap imports into our markets in return for

993
fishing facilities for another European country until we receive an overall agreement satisfactory to Britain. That remains the firm position of the British Government.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me about aid to the industry and whether a statement will be made next week. I shall be having a meeting with the industry on Tuesday next. The representatives of the industry will then analyse what they consider to be the financial position and make their suggestions. Until I have that meeting on Tuesday afternoon I shall not know the nature of the suggestion. I shall then have to consider my proposals, together with my Government colleagues, and I shall then be able to make a statement. I consider the matter to be urgent. Although I cannot promise to make a statement next week, following next Tuesday's meeting urgent decisions will be taken in Whitehall, and an early statement will be made to the House of Commons.
With regard to imports, in the month of January my Department analysed 22 reports of imports that we considered should be looked at urgently by the Commission. As the right hon. Gentleman will know, due to the death of Mr. Gundelach we have a new Commissioner who has taken charge of the portfolio. I discussed these cases with him this week and he has personally undertaken to look into them urgently.
Mr. Peter Mills: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the very firm stand that he has made, which will be particularly welcome in the South-West of England. Will he agree that, bearing in mind his very firm stand, the fishermen should now go back to sea?
Does my right hon. Friend agree that if the nonsense and the difficulties that he is having with the French continue we may have to take unilateral action in order to help our fishermen and our consumers?
Mr. Walker: I have been with the leaders of the industry for the last three days in Brussels. They made it clear that the action that was being taken by the fishermen was not intended to mean that the British Government should come to a speedy settlement, irrespective of the terms. Indeed, they very much supported our negotiating position. I am glad to have received this morning from ports throughout the United Kingdom reports that our fishermen are going back to sea.
I understand from the leaders with whom I have been in Brussels that they appreciate the financial aid to the industry, which is a form of unilateral action. There was no pressure on the Government for us to take earlier action, having promised to review the matter at the end of March, and it is appreciated by them that the Government on their own initiative decided to review the financial position ahead of the time that was agreed for that review. That action was appreciated, and they have agreed on the procedure that we are following with regard to imports.
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Now that the Minister has encountered, and rightly resisted, intransigence on fundamentals which have not previously been brought into the issue, will he take the opportunity to review the position on catch quotas and zones, where we have made compromises which were not really satisfactory from the point of view of the industry? If a matter is to be opened up by other parties, it ought to be opened up by us as well.
Mr. Walker: May I say to the right hon. Gentleman—in terms which I know affect his constituents—that there was a discussion in the course of the three days about the possible opening up of total allowable catches for herring in the North Sea, and we made clear that if there were to be such a consideration the TACs and the Mourne fishery should be considered at the same time.
Sir Walter Clegg: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the great fight that he is putting up. Will he say whether there was any discussion at the meeting of an increase in EEC reference prices, which would undoubtedly help? Also, was anything said about exploratory or training voyages?
Mr. Walker: No, Sir. I have said "No", but in terms of discussing the marketing arrangements and in our talks with the Commission and with other Ministers we continued to put our view that the withdrawal prices, in spite of the increase that we have recently obtained, have little relationship to the economic cost of fishing, so we continued to press that point.
There was a general discussion on the future nature of a structures package, and on this question a number of nations put differing views as to the value of exploratory voyages. As my hon. Friend knows from the national aid programme that we announced last year, in terms of our own industry, we considered that these have a role to play.
Mr. A. J. Beith: Did any country other than France at the recent meeting seek to claim access within our 12-mile limit? Will the Secretary of State resist any attempt to cut into that limit? Does he recall Minister after Minister saying that the question of imports would be looked into with great urgency? How can we have any confidence that these imports will be stopped or abated?
Mr. Walker: One can have no confidence at all, judging by the performance of previous Ministers. As my predecessor knows, it is difficult to judge whether an import is dumped where auction markets prevail. We can make effective investigations into the allegations of illegal practices and ensure that action is taken.
Varying views about the historic rights were expressed in the talks about the 12-mile limit by a number of member countries. The major discussions about access took place on the principle of the importance of certain countries having a preferential area outside the 12-mile zone. The talks came to an end because it was impossible to find an acceptable proposal in that regard.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: As the House can see, a large number of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen are seeking to ask questions. If right hon. and hon. Members will be as brief as possible in their questions and replies, I hope to call everyone, at least those with a constituency interest.
Mr. Michael Shaw: Is my right hon. Friend aware how much we appreciate the fact that he and his colleagues are seeking a fair and enforceable fisheries agreement and, in reaching that agreement how necessary it is to stick to the 12-mile exclusive limit and to bear in mind our experience that any exceptions to the 12-mile limit have been disastrous for the fishing industry, particularly on the Yorkshire coast?
Mr. Walker: The advantage of having at these negotiations the leaders of the industry in my room in Brussels discussing the detail is that it is possible to discuss details with the fishermen who know the problems of the locality and who know what is acceptable and what is not acceptable. They know that we will not deliver a fishing agreement that is unacceptable to the British industry.
Mr. James Johnson: May I congratulate the Minister on taking a firm stand against his Gaullist opponents in the Fisheries Council? We welcome his statement about the need for an inquiry into the dumping of fish in this country. In that connection, is he aware that a boat has just left Hull on its way to Arctic waters off the coast of Norway? It is on a hiding to nothing; it is a sheer gamble. It can catch cod at £70 a tonne, but cannot sell cod at above £60 a tonne when it returns. Unless the Minister can stop these cheap imports—this dumping—the industry will be in a most unholy mess.
Mr. Walker: I recognise the frustration of any fishermen who go to sea for a couple of days, come back with a good catch and then find that they have lost money and earned nothing. In fact, cod is one of the prime reasons why I resisted the Canadian agreement, because it would have made cod prices in this country even higher than they are at present. The hon. Gentleman knows that the fishing industry was relieved when, at the last Council meeting, we were able to reach agreement on the Norwegian waters, as a result of which ships such as the one that he mentioned are able to go there. I trust that the market will firm up in time for the trip to be a success.
Mr. Patrick Wall: I congratulate my right hon. Friend particularly on his stand on the 12-mile limit. It appears that there will be no settlement in that regard until after the French presidential election. I put two questions to my right hon. Friend. The first concerns imports. I know how difficult it is to make decisions about dumping, but if the heat is to be taken out of the situation, can something be done about imports immediately, and financial aid can be given to the industry as soon as possible? Can my right hon. Friend give us more assurance that there will be action, not talk, on these two issues at the earliest possible moment?
Mr. Walker: My hon. Friend mentioned the difficulties connected with imports. Let me give the example of Lowestoft, where much plaice is caught and where, clearly, the price of imported fish has an effect. If Dutch vessels, whose primary interest is sole, catch plaice as a by-catch, they get their reward on the sole catch and are not too concerned about the price that they obtain for plaice. That is a factor that adversely affects ports such as Lowestoft, and it is a factor that is difficult to control. All that I can say is that I have told the industry that we shall meet it next Tuesday to discuss the financial arrangements, and we shall discuss any creative arrangements that it wishes to make.
Mr. Austin Mitchell: Does the Minister agree that what will do most to get the Grimsby fishermen back to sea is emergency action on imports? We welcome the inquiry that the right hon. Gentleman has initiated, though the facts are reasonably well known because it is a repetition of last year's crisis. Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the industry wants action now, particularly on cheap imports from the EEC?
996
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the breakdown in negotiations gives him the chance not only to strengthen our negotiating position—we have already given too much away—but to fulfil the commitment in the Conservative Party manifesto that in the absence of an agreement the Government will not hesitate to take the necessary measures on their own? When will the right hon Gentlman take those measures?
Mr. Walker: I am somewhat surprised by what the hon. Member says. It was most encouraging that the Grimsby fishermen were the first to go back. At least they are encouraged by the action that we took. The Grimsby fishermen know that already this year the Government have given double the aid of any of their predecessors in any one year. He knows, too, that we have tackled immediately any problem that they have raised with us.
Mr. Iain Sproat: May I add to the warm welcome that my right hon. Friend has already received for his strong defence of the interests of British fishermen? I welcome also the setting up of the committee to look into allegations of the dumping of cheap foreign fish. Will my right hon. Friend tell us more about the composition of the committee from the point of view of the fishing industry, and also give us details of the 22 cases of irregular imports from third countries? Which countries were they?
Mr. Walker: Obviously I do not have the details of the 22 cases to hand, but a substantial number of them came from North American countries. We have given the details to the Commission.
On the composition of the committee, in the small negotiating group that acts in an advisory capacity to me in Brussels, I consult the industry to try to arrange representation so that all sectors of the industry are satisfied that they have a voice. I shall do the same in the case of this committee.
Mr. Robert Maclennan: Will the Minister make clear that whatever the outcome of the Commission's investigation of the 22 cases of alleged irregular imports, the practicalities of compensating the industry for the losses that it has incurred are almost impossible? The drying up of markets over a long period has led to grave financial losses, and it is not practical to compensate for that. Following the investigations, what steps does the right hon. Gentleman hope will be taken to prevent a recurrence? That is what is worrying the industry.
Mr. Walker: We have referred to the Commission our view that the concept of having a reference price by which third country imports cannot come into the Community—a basic principle accepted by the Community—has not operated properly. I am grateful to the new Commissioner for taking this matter seriously and for undertaking personally to look into it. I hope that he will come forward with proposals to tighten up the position. I agree with what the hon. Gentleman said about the damage done by cheaper imports during the past year. That is why we have doubled already the amount of aid given to the industry previously.
Mr. Kenneth Warren: Will my right hon. Friend give more details about the representation of the inshore fishermen on the committee, bearing in mind that the variations of grounds around our shores are

997
substantial? Secondly, may I say how much I admire the way that my right hon. Friend has combated the audacity of the French? We do not want them wrecking our grounds legally when they have already wrecked their own.
Mr. Walker: I hope that the composition of the committee will be such that the industry will have confidence in it. I think my hon. Friend will agree that if we have a committee in which every port, locality and district are represented it will not be effective in taking the type of action that is necessary. Therefore, I want a small, compact committee of leaders of the fishing industry which is respected by the industry as a whole.
Mr. Douglas Jay: Does the Minister feel that throughout the talks the French showed a Community spirit?
Mr. Walker: A French Deputy could perhaps ask the French Minister the same question about the British. There is a dialogue between countries on a number of questions. Naturally, countries pursue their national interests. An examination of the history of the Community reveals that, as a result, decisions are made to the benefit of Europe as a whole.
Mr. David Mudd (Falmouth and Cambourne): My right hon. Friend will get, but hardly expect, extra congratulations on the positive steps that he has taken. Will he bear in mind that the West Country mackerel industry, particularly that of Cornwall, has borne the brunt of the absence of a CFP? Can he assure us that interim steps will be taken so that Cornish mackerel are left for Cornish fishermen to catch when sanity prevails in the EEC?
Mr. Walker: Yes. My hon. Friend knows the interest that my Department and, in particular, the Minister of State have taken in the detailed problems of the Cornish mackerel fisheries.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Why is it necessary for the Minister to take part in the exercise of setting up a quango-ACAS-type body when there is plenty of evidence on television film and in other forms in the media to prove that fiddling and dumping take place on a massive scale, to the detriment of this country? Is it not more true to say that this delaying tactic, this buying of time, has more to do with the attempted re-election of Giscard d'Estaing than with saving the jobs of British fishermen?
Mr. Walker: In view of the hon. Gentleman's detailed knowledge of the fishing industry, I think that he will know that his fishing constituents require more than anything else a system of control which does not exist because we do not have a common fisheries policy.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. If hon. Members will co-operate and be as brief as they can, I shall call those who have been rising.
Mr. Albert McQuarrie: I add my congratulations to my right hon. Friend the Minister, the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Minister of State on the tremendous stand that they made. Hon. Members might not realise that they worked through the night until 4 o'clock this morning to try to agree a common fisheries policy.
998
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the main reason behind the fishermen's dispute was not necessarily the common fisheries policy but the collapse of prices at the quayside due to the high import of fish, which last year amounted to 234,000 tonnes and was worth £18 million? Will my right hon. Friend therefore take urgent steps with the new committee to control imports of fish that is not required for the processing factories?
Mr. Walker: The processing factories are of great importance to our fishing industry and to the consumers. They are an important part of the market. All are agreed that there has been unfair competition and perhaps illegal practices. We have tried to set up the best instrument to discover such practices and to take action against them.
Mr. James Kilfedder: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the only way to save from further harm fishermen in Northern Ireland, and in areas in England, Scotland and Wales which border the Irish Sea, is to exclude all foreigners, particularly the French, from that area?
Mr. Walker: Over the years British fishermen have fished in many parts of the European seas. That has been to the benefit of our fishing industry. Northern Ireland has a particular problem because under The Hague agreements of 1976 the Irish Republic was granted double quotas. That has a great adverse effect on the fishermen of Northern Ireland. That is why I am intent on ensuring that an arrangement for Northern Ireland is made to compensate.
Sir Albert Costain: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the fishermen of South-East Kent have seen the French ruin their own fishing grounds and are particularly anxious that he should persevere with the 12-mile limit? Will he arrange for the committee to examine the price of imported fish and follow it to the shops to discover why fish is not cheaper there?
Mr. Walker: I originally appointed five people to advise on marketing in the food industry in general. Two of them are examining the question of the marketing offish in Britain. I look forward to their report with interest.
Mr. Teddy Taylor: In view of the importance of the fishing industry in Southend, may we have a clear assurance that no concession was or will be made on the principle of the 12-mile limit? In spite of the worrying speech by the German Foreign Minister, did my right hon. Friend receive an assurance from fellow members of the Council of Ministers that the lack of an agreement will not be used as a device to delay the payments due to Britain by 31 March?
Mr. Walker: As my hon. Friend knows from his great interest in European matters, some people suggested that the Community payments would not be made. I know that my hon. Friend rejoices that the payments have already been made under the budget agreement. No pressure of any description was put upon me by any member of the Community on that question.
Mr. Taylor: What about Southend?
Mr. Walker: The details of the agreement that is eventually made on access and quotas will have the support of the British fishing industry.
Mr. Peter Fraser: Whatever else has been said in the House in the last 24 hours, will the

999
Minister convey to the Secretary of State for Scotland the fact that the Scottish fishermen appreciate his commitment to their cause and his presence in Brussels? I welcome what my right hon. Friend has said about question of financial aid, which he is reviewing, but has he determined the volume and form of that aid? Does he accept that in the two other instances criticism was made of the form of aid?
Mr. Walker: Throughout yesterday we discussed the major access requirement for Scotland. I have no doubt that if my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland had been absent from Brussels he would have een criticised by the Opposition. I took a leading part in the negotiations and I was grateful for the presence and activity of my right hon. Friend during the talks. No commitment and no decision of any description has been taken about the financial arrangements. Decisions will not be taken at next Tuesday's meeting. The fishing industry will give us its analysis of the position and its suggestions about how the Government can help.
Mr. Alex Pollock: May I extend my sympathies to the Minister at this anxious and frustrating time? Pending settlement, will he give serious consideration to the possibility of either a fuel subsidy or an interest relief grant?
Mr. Walker: I recognise that both those suggestions are of great importance industry will give its analysis of the financial position and make suggestions about their priorities. We shall then consider them urgently.
Mr. David Crouch: I hope that my right hon. Friend will not say to me, as he said to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), that I do not have a considerable knowledge of the fishing industry. Everybody is worried about the fishing industry. Is my right hon. Friend aware that from Whitstable we export by the millions to France oysters in the form of spat?
Mr. Walker: First, I certainly did not say that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has no knowledge of the fishing industry. On behalf of his constituents he has considerable knowledge and interest in that subject. That is the opposite to what my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) said. I am sorry if my hon. Friend thought that I was being sarcastic. I am delighted to hear of the enormous export trade in oysters to France. I hope that a few will remain in Britain.
Mr. Gavin Strang: Does the Secretary of State see any prospect of agreement on the common agricultural policy before the French presidential election? May we be assured that there will be no trade-off between the fishery negotiations and the negotiations that are shortly to start on the agricultural prices package?
Mr. Walker: On the last point, I think that the hon. Gentleman knows that on budget, agricultural and fishing matters we have never accepted the principle of linkage. It is not the intention of the Government to link any of those matters. The question about the prospect of agreement before the French election would be better put to the French Minister, not to me.

Paymaster General (Speech)
Mr. Harry Cowans: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House,
1000
under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the statement by the Minister in charge of Government information made outside this House on 11 February."
It is disappointing that the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) is not in his seat. He and his office were informed that I intended to raise the matter.
The right hon. Gentleman's statement was made to the Putney Conservative Association. Had it remained within that august body, its contents might not have been of such considerable purport to the House. His speech has been referred to widely in the press and in the House today, but unfortunately only some of it has been talked about. Within the speech are wide implications of a change of Government policy and a change of direction, which are matters to be debated in the House.
I welcome the right hon. Member back into the real world because in part of the speech he said of trends that had occurred in the past two years that they were not unexpected, although their sharpness and suddenness came as a surprise. Labout Members have been telling the Government about the sharpness—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not make the speech that he would make if I were to grant the application. All that he needs to do is to persuade me of the urgency, importance and specific nature of what is troubling him.
Mr. Cowans: I apologise for transgressing, Mr. Speaker. I shall leave that part of the speech and carry on with another part and hope that I shall not transgress again. It is difficult to make my point without quoting the right hon. Gentleman's speech. I shall change my tack in quoting from the speech. The part that makes my point is:
"Commonsense tells us that changed circumstances make adjustments necessary in tactics and time."
That is policy and that is a matter which interests the House. If tactics are to be changed—and we have been telling the right hon. Gentleman for a long time that his tactics are wrong—that matter should be debated on the floor of the House. The right hon. Member's statement goes further:
"We could neither press ahead regardless with our planned schedule nor avoid some needed measures to deal with some of the distressing effects"
of the factors that he had referred to.
Labour Members have been informing the right hon. Member daily of the distressing effects. He has talked about "some measures". Those measures are important to the House and should be brought before the House. Will he at last do something about unemployment? Is that one of the measures? Is his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry suddenly to change his mind and appoint a northern development agency? Is that one of the measures? The answer is that we do not know. That is why the matter should be debated in the House, to prove that the right hon. Gentleman has been listening to what we have been telling him—which will help to get the country back to where it was before the Conservative Government came into office.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. (rowans) gave me notice this morning before 12 o'clock that he would seek to make an application under Standing Order No. 9.

1001
The hon. Gentleman asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purposes of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the statement by the Minister in charge of Government information made outside this House on 11 February."
I listened, as the House did, with interest to what the hon. Gentleman said in making his application. The House knows that it has told me to give no reasons for my decision. I have to rule that the hon. Gentleman's submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order. Therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

BILL PRESENTED
PETROLEUM AND CONTINENTAL SHELF
Mr. Secretary Howell, supported by Mr. Secretary Whitelaw, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Secretary Sir Keith Joseph, Mr. Secretary Younger, Mr. Hamish Gray, Mr. Norman Lamont and Mr. John Moore presented a Bill to make further provision with respect to the British National Oil Corporation; to abolish the National Oil Account; to make further provision about licences to search for and get petroleum; to provide for safety zones around certain installations; to make provision as to the application of the law in areas of the continental shelf designated under the Continental Shelf Act 1964 and certain areas adjacent thereto; to extend the application of the Mineral Workings (Offshore Installations) Act 1971 and the Offshore Petroleum Development (Scotland) Act 1975; to amend the Miscellaneous Financial Provisions Act 1968, the Petroleum and Submarine Pipe-lines Act 1975 and the Participation Agreements Act 1978; and for connected purposes; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 62.]

Orders of the Day

  Education (Scotland) (No. 2) Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Mr. Speaker: I have not selected the reasoned amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux).
  4.37 pm
  The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. George Younger): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The Bill was laid before the House last year as the Education (Scotland) (No. 2) Bill. As we have passed the beginning of a new calendar year, the "No. 2" part of the title falls to be removed The first Scottish education Bill of 1980 was, of course, what is now the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 which was a consolidation measure with minor changes of the education provisions in more than 20 statutes. This Bill is a very different matter. It is not too much to describe the Bill, as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, the Member for Edinburgh, North (Mr. Fletcher) did on its publication, as the biggest initiative in Scottish education legislation for many years, probably the biggest since the Education (Scotland) Act 1945.
  It might be helpful if I mentioned at this point—because it explains what may strike some as an unusual layout of the Bill—that in order not to lose too quickly the advantages of the 1980 consolidation the Bill has been largely drafted in the form of provisions to be inserted in the 1980 Act either as new provisions or as substitutions. That will enable the 1980 Act to be produced in due course incorporating the Bill's provisions when enacted—the whole then being in an easily readable and comprehensible form to the benefit of those who will use it.
  The main subject of the Bill—the provisions relating to admissions to school—fulfils an undertaking given in our election manifesto, as does the assisted places scheme. Another group of provisions—relating to special educational needs—implement the recommendations of the Warnock committee so far as they relate to the statutory framework. The Bill also relaxes some controls administered by the Scottish Education Department, and contains provisions relating to the Scottish Certificate of Education Examination Board, the negotiations of teachers' pay and conditions of service, and the responsibility for educational endowments.
  The Bill is the product of a great deal of work which has been going on in the Scottish Education Department over the past year or so and before I turn to its provisions I pause briefly to put its subject matter in context against the background of the whole scope and needs of the Scottish educational system at present. That is essential to any proper understanding of the Bill, because suggestions have been made frequently recently both that it is "irrelevant" to the present needs of Scottish education and that important issues that ought to have been dealt with in it have been ignored.
  For example, I should like to explain briefly why the Bill does not deal with the special needs of the 16 to 18-year-olds which, as hon. Members will recall, were the subject of a consultative paper, "16–18s in Scotland: The

  1003
  First 2 Years of Post-Compulsory Education". In that area our principal aim, of course, must be to improve the preparation of young people for work and, to that end, to strengthen existing links between education and training. The Government's proposals for extending the existing programme of vocational preparation schemes have already been announced. We are also considering, in the light of the responses to the consultative paper, whether there is any action to be taken to integrate more effectively the work of schools and further education colleges in Scotland. No need for legislation, however, has so far been identified, as the work can and will proceed without any direct reference in the Bill.
  In primary education, the recently published HMI report on teaching and learning in primary 4 and primary 7 has been recognised as an important landmark. As the first major report on such matters since the publication of the primary memorandum in 1965, it points the way ahead for that vital sector. The ground work laid down is being furthered in a number of ways. I know that it has been felt by some teachers that primary education has been left unrecognised and neglected in comparison with the much-publicised developments in secondary education and I am glad to be able to put on record the vital importance which we attach to the primary schools. I look forward to steady development along the lines suggested in the report.
  Turning to secondary schools, the Government have accepted the main recommendations of the Munn and Dunning reports in principle and work is progressing satisfactorily on the development programme announced last March in response to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll (Mr. MacKay). A progress report has now been published. Here again, however, no legislation is called for.
  Mr. John Maxton: When talking about the Munn and Dunning reports, will the Secretary of State give some indication of what expenditure for in-service training for teachers he is prepared to allow, as that was a major factor in both reports?
  Mr. Younger: That is an important point. We have made adequate recognition of it in our calculations for the rate support grant. That is the proper way to do it and I am sure that the education authorities will make the best possible use of the resources.
  There are many other initiatives that I could mention if this were the time to do so. For example, the Education for the Industrial Society project, with its emphasis on ways in which school courses generally might be adapted to give pupils a better preparation for the world of work, is making good progress and will be completed in spring 1982. But I hope that those few examples will leave the House in no doubt that the fact that existing statute does not require amendment in relation to any particular major initiatives in no way implies that they are being undervalued or neglected.
  If I were asked to nominate the theme most recurrent in the Bill, it would be in the one word "freedom". The Government's purposes in the Bill, by contrast with the policies of some Labour Members, who seem apt to subordinate freedom to their preference for Government intervention and control, are greatly concerned with freedom—freedom for local authorities to act on their own initiatives where that is appropriate, and after due consultation with parents, but, above all, greater freedom
  1004
  for parents to choose the school and the type of education that they consider best for their children. For too long the attitude has prevailed in some quarters that parents must just accept without question whatever education authorities or teachers think fit to offer them. I remind the House that it is on the parent that the statutory responsibility rests for seeing that his child receives
  "efficient education … suitable to his age, ability and aptitude".
  Is it not time that we acted in accordance with the spirit of that provision and gave parents a greater say in how their children are to be educated?
  The first part of the Bill—clauses 1 and 2—expresses that theme. As hon. Members will be aware, last March my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North invited a wide range of bodies to comment on proposals outlined in our consultative document "Admission to School—A Charter for Parents"—proposals designed to give parents a greater say on the choice of school. Clause 1 follows that up by providing a statutory framework within which parents can express their choice. Some authorities in Scotland already adopt a flexible and sympathetic attitude towards parental choice and try to accede to parental wishes wherever they can. But that is not, alas, the universal practice. There are areas where authorities are willing to meet a parent's request for a particular school only in the most exceptional circumstances. At a time of falling rolls, when there is often plenty of room in the school of the parent's choice, I do not think there is any justification for such an approach. Clause 1 therefore gives education authorities a duty to comply with parental requests, unless one or more of the specified grounds for refusal apply.
  Clearly there will still be cases where parental requests will be refused, and indeed some refusals will be quite justifiable. We have made it plain on many occasions that parental choice cannot operate at any price. To safeguard parents, however, if they are not satisfied by the education authority's refusal of a request, clause 1 and schedule 1 provide for a system of independent appeal committees to examine each case referred to them. I should make it clear that I do not expect many cases to go to appeal committees.
  The commonest cause for the complaints that I receive from parents is that their request has been turned down, although they believe that there is room for their child in the chosen school. The Bill will end that cause of complaint and, if the new provisions are seen to be operated fairly, there should be few parents who believe that they have cause to appeal, even if they have been unsuccessful in their request because the school they want is oversubscribed. Nevertheless, I accept that there will be some parents who will wish to go to the appeal committees, and thereafter a few who will remain dissatisfied even after an appeal committee has heard their case. To cater for such parents clause 1 also makes provision for a further level of appeal to the sheriff.
  In our consultative paper last March, we urged authorities to act in accordance with the spirit of our proposals and to accept an obligation to meet parents' wishes if that can be done within the existing accommodation and staffing resources in the school of choice. I take the opportunity to repeat that request in relation to the arrangements which they are now beginning to make for the admission of children to primary schools or transfer to secondary schools next August. No one, I am

  1005
  sure, would wish to contemplate the disruption which will be caused if a large number of parents are left feeling that their requests have been turned down unreasonably, and exercise their right to repeat their request and to appeal if it is refused, when this part of the Bill comes into operation at some point during the 1981–82 school session.
  Parents will need information about schools and about the education authority's admission arrangements. Clause 1 therefore provides that education authorities will be required to make prescribed information available and to tell parents, when their child is allocated to a particular school, of their right to request an alternative school. Clause 2 provides that authorities will not have to incur additional expenditure in respect of board, lodgings and transport when they have offered a place with suitable arrangements for transport and so on, but the parent has asked for a place in a different school. Authorities will be empowered to provide assistance with transport to the school of the parent's choice, but that will be entirely within their discretion.
  I turn now to the provisions in the Bill that deal with special educational needs. These provisions implement the basic changes in attitude to the education of handicapped children and young people recommended by the Warnock committee. The central message of the Warnock report—and it is especially apt in this International Year of Disabled People—is that children are individuals and should be seen as such. The educational system should look positively at the child's capacity and his educational needs: the common aim for all must be the achievement of the full potential of each child. As a foundation for this approach clause 3 introduces a broad and flexible concept of special educational needs in terms which make it clear that we are concerned with all children who need a fair amount of extra help with their schooling. The new definition covers not only the small number of children who, under the existing law, would be ascertained within rigid categories of handicap as requiring special education but many more children besides—the Warnock committee itself thought that up to one in five would evince some form of special educational need at some time during their school career.
  Mr. Jim Craigen: In this International Year of Disabled People, what extra provision will the Scottish Office make available? I have two schools under threat of closure and it seems to me that extra provision will be required if local authorities are to make this new legislation work.
  Mr. Younger: I should be very glad to look into the particular instances that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned. [Interruption.] I do not know whether the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) will look into it. I shall be very grateful if he does. Whether he is trying to make his own speech from a sitting position I do not know. We are looking forward tremendously to hearing from him later on. Perhaps he could leave us to whet our appetites a little for when he gets called later on, if he does. If the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen) has worries about this matter I should be very glad to look into the point.
  As far as resources are concerned, if the hon. Gentleman is referring to education and the needs of the disabled, the rate support grant settlement for social work
  1006
  generally—which includes work for the disabled—actually shows a real increase of approximately 1 per cent. There is, therefore, absolutely no excuse whatever for any local authority cutting back on essential needs for the disabled. Indeed, it ought to be able marginally to increase them. As the hon. Gentleman, I am sure, will approve of that, I think that it is a pan answer to his question.
  Clause 4 makes new provision directly concerned with children and young people whose needs are both marked and continuing—generally those for whom special education has been found necessary in the past. The clause has two main effects. First, it provides for the assessment of children and young persons with the object of establishing whether their special needs are, in the words of the Bill, "pronounced, specific or complex". Where they are, the education authority has a duty to keep a special individual record which sets out the character and severity of the pupil's handicaps, lists his educational needs and the measures the authority proposes to take, and, where appropriate, names the school it proposes. Secondly, the parents of recorded children are given opportunities to express their views on the needs of the child and the same right to express their wishes with regard to a choice of school as clause 1 gives to other parents.
  Hon. Members may recall that in the White Paper "Special Educational Needs in Scotland" published last summer I canvassed the possibility that the appeal committee and the sheriff should hear appeals against the record as well as choice of school issues. I received strong representations, however, to the effect that the consideration of the sensitive issues raised by questions of impaired ability should remain with my own professional advisers. Clause 4, therefore, now distinguishes carefully between appeals against the decision to record a child or against the description in the record—these will have to be referred to the Secretary of State—and appeals against the refusal of the parent's choice of school, which will be dealt with by the appeal committee in the ordinary way. I think we now have in the Bill a system which, without being too complicated in operation, will ensure that the separate issues are each handled in the proper way.
  Mr. Dick Douglas: Clauses 3 and 4 impose severe burdens on the education authority. If I recall them correctly, the provisions envisaged in Warnock would require the education authorities, if they are to carry out their duties, to have recourse to such sophisticated teaching elements as physiotherapists and speech therapists and there is no provision, as I understand it, in this Bill for doing that. Indeed, there is a reduction in these facilities.
  Mr. Younger: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concern. He is quite right, of course, in saying that one cannot improve facilities for the education of disabled children without some money. Of course, this measure is only just having its Second Reading today and we hope it will be approved by the House. It is our intention, if it is approved, that provision will be made in the rate support grant settlements in the normal way so that the provision that local authorities are likely to be able to make use of is allowed for. I think that that is the fairest way to approach it. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be satisfied with that.
  The next part of the Bill—clause 5 and schedule 4—concerns the assisted places scheme. Labour Members

  1007
  have lost no opportunity of making it clear in recent months that this is the part of the Bill to which they are most strongly opposed. Indeed, it seems to be the only part of the Bill that they have taken on board at all. I believe, however, that their opposition, though no doubt sincere, is compounded of prejudice and a great deal of misunderstanding. I hope I can dispel at least some of the misunderstanding, although it may be beyond me to dispel all the prejudice.
  Mr. David Steel: In dispelling these misunderstandings, will the right hon. Gentleman take great care to tell us, in describing the detail of the scheme proposed in clause 5, what educational bodies in Scotland approve of the scheme?
  Mr. Younger: If the right hon. Gentleman would like some detail on that, I will ask my hon. Friend to mention it in replying. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman would also like a list—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Canavan: The name of one will do.
  Mr. Younger: The right hon. Gentleman may like a list of those who are gladly taking advantage of the scheme as well. I think that perhaps the most eloquent testimony that the scheme is entirely voluntary is to be found in the people taking part in it. I am not even despairing of dispelling some of the prejudice of the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan). I am sure he will respond vocally if I succeed.
  Perhaps I could describe briefly what the scheme is. [Interruption.] Whether the right hon. Member for Craigton is still halfway through his speech I am not sure, but he is doing a very good job on it. Perhaps he has to prepare his speeches while he is sitting on the Front Bench. I always feel a little deprived because I rarely get the privilege of hearing the excellent speeches the right hon. Gentleman makes from the Front Bench from a sedentary position. No doubt they are so much better than the ones he makes standing up. I shall just have to make do with those.
  The proposal in Clause 5 is that the existing block grant to the grant-aided secondary schools will be phased out and the resources thus released put at the disposal of suitable fee-paying secondary schools to enable them to remit the fees of pupils in accord with a prescribed parental income scale. At income levels up to about £90 a week remission will be total. Above that level an increasing parental contribution will be required and remission will cease altogether at the level of about £180 a week. The pupils to be admitted to assisted places will be chosen by the schools themselves, subject only to a requirement that they must be capable of benefiting from the education provided. In addition, some resources will be provided also to cover certain specified incidental expenses. This latter power will be exercised only to the extent of ensuring that pupils enjoying fee remission will not be at a disadvantage in comparison with children in the public sector.
  I ask hon. Members to consider what they would have been saying on this subject if we had decided not to have an assisted places scheme in Scotland but simply to go on with the grant-aided secondary schools on the basis we inherited. Of course, I know that in principle Opposition Members would like to see all fee-paying schools abolished. But would they really have preferred us to
  1008
  preserve the status quo? I should have thought that Labour Members would recognise that the scheme is at least a step in the right direction. It will progressively convert the traditional indiscriminate subsidy, which helps only families who can already afford to pay substantial fees, into an income-linked subsidy. I simply cannot see how the Opposition can take the view that that step is undesirable in itself.
  Mr. Dennis Canavan: The Secretary of State is very fond of telling us, as is his junior Minister, that the assisted places scheme will not cost one extra penny of public money, that it is just redistributing the grant aid that is already there. Will he come clean, stop misleading the House and tell us that since his Government came to power the increase in grant aid to fee-paying schools has been well over 200 per cent., and that there is nothing in the Bill to stop him or any future Secretary of State increasing the amount of public money that will be doled out through the assisted places scheme to these privileged fee-paying schools?
  Mr. Younger: The hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) is quite right. I am extremely fond of telling him things; it is a useful activity. I always enjoy hearing from him too. The answer is that it is true that we have managed to put right some of the damage the previous Government did to these schools by reducing the grant paid to them to a level which made it almost useless to those with low incomes who wished to exercise some choice in education. The hon. Gentleman must face the fact that his views on education, if implemented, would leave only two categories of people—those who were extremely well off and could afford some choice, and all the rest who could afford no choice whatever. He, as a good Socialist—as I understand he is—should be very pleased to think that some people with low incomes will be able to exercise some choice in the education of their children instead of the choice being confined to those who are very well off. But perhaps the hon. Gentleman is beginning to change his views. I look forward to his conversion, although I should view it with some apprehension if he were to cross the Floor of the House.
  People used to talk about grant-aided schools as a bridge between the public sector and the private sector, meaning that they provided an alternative accessible to the lower income family. They sometimes still speak in that way. But the truth is that that bridge has long since collapsed. It existed in the days when fully economic school fees were much lower than they are now and when the subsidy to the grant-aided schools reduced those fees by more than half. There is no pretending that today's fees of, say, £1,000 reduced by the block grant to £800 are within the reach of lower income families. The assisted places scheme is fundamentally an effort to rebuild that bridge.
  There is one other thing I must mention. I have taken note of the criticism levelled at the Government by Labour Members against the preparations that are being made for the scheme in advance of the Bill. This criticism is unjustified. It is perfectly normal for any Government to carry out preparatory work, and we have been at pains to keep Parliament fully informed of our preparations. I take this opportunity of mentioning a small change in the proposed parental income scale—the raising of the deduction allowed for a dependent relative to the figure of

  1009
  £600. We also make it clear that the scheme remains subject to the enactment of the Bill. The House should know, however, that the Bill is not essential to the introduction of the assisted places scheme as I already have powers to introduce the scheme under existing legislation. I propose, therefore, to use my existing powers in sections 73 and 74 of the 1980 Act to make interim regulations which I hope to lay before the House shortly. This will not, of course, deprive the House of the opportunity of discussing the proposals fully, and the regulations will, indeed, help us to have a better informed discussion since they will provide background to the provision in the Bill.
  I now pass on into what I hope will be calmer waters.
  Mr. Ernie Ross: Does the Secretary of State agree that the Dundee high school jumped the gun and issued a pamphlet well in advance of the matter being debated in the Chamber? Is it not wholly incorrect to suggest that certain things might take place when the House has not had a chance to discuss those matters? This is to deny the House its right to discuss the matter. Even if the right hon. Gentleman does have powers, he should lay the matter before the House before making an announcement.
  Mr. Younger: With respect, I do not think the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) has quite taken the point. I already have powers under a previous Act passed by the House to do this under regulations, and that is how I shall proceed until the Bill becomes law. I hope the hon. Gentleman will feel that that is fair. I should have thought that he would have been extremely pleased that I am, by this method, trying to extend to the children of some of his constituents on low incomes the chance to go to Dundee high school. I would expect him to be pleased about that and to be pressing me to allow as many of his constituents as possible to have this benefit, but perhaps I have misjudged him.
  Mr. Ernie Ross: Will the Secretary of State accept that very few of my constituents wish to send their children to Dundee high school? Does he concede that one group who will benefit are the pupils at present at the school, and that that is what is behind the assisted places scheme? It is a method that the Government have chosen to give money back to the people who generally support them.
  Mr. Younger: If the hon. Gentleman thinks about it, he will surely be pleased that some of his constituents on low incomes with children already at Dundee high school will get some help with the school fees. I should have thought that that would have pleased the hon. Gentleman, although I shall not press him to write a letter of thanks.
  In reply to the hon. Gentleman's first point, I hope that he was not implying that, because only a few people would benefit from the scheme, it is undesirable. That is not the right way to look at it. If it benefits only one of his constituents he should be pleased about it.
  I want now to pass on to clauses 6 to 8, dealing with the relaxation of controls. At present education authorities have to seek my consent to any school closure and to any change in their schemes of educational provision—these list the schools which they run, the stages of education which each covers, and the normal feeder arrangements
  1010
  between primary and secondary schools—or in their transfer schemes, which cover other arrangements for transfer from primary to secondary education. These specific controls date from a time when the school system was closely regulated by central Government, and we believe that authorities should now have freedom to tailor their school system to meet local circumstances. Clause 8 therefore abolishes the requirement on education authorities to prepare schemes and submit them to me for approval, and schedule 9 repeals the specific requirement that they must seek my approval to any school closure. Clause 6, however, will ensure that parents' wishes will continue to be taken into account. Authorities will be required to consult parents before making changes of a prescribed kind and there will be power also to prescribe changes which will still require my approval.
  I have given considerable thought to the effect on denominational schools of this relaxation of my controls. Let me make our position with regard to denominational schools quite clear. We have no intention of altering the balance achieved by the 1918 Act, still less of ending the existence of separate denominational schools. That is an assurance which I have been specifically asked to give. My concern has been to retain that balance. Thus, just as the Bill removes many of the controls at present exercised by the Secretary of State over non-denominational schools, so it proposes to end the present control over changes affecting denominational schools. But it provides a particular safeguard—where the closure of a denominational school means that its pupils will have to transfer to a non-denominational school, this will continue to require my approval.
  The Roman Catholic hierarchy in Scotland, however, made representations to me about the proposed provisions of the Bill. It has emphasised that, although it has no apprehension that any existing education authority would discriminate against denominational schools, it still regards some mechanism to ensure the preservation of the underlying intentions and principles of the 1918 Act as essential. It has, therefore, asked for a right of appeal to the Secretary of State in any case where a proposal would, in its view, materially worsen the position of denominational schools in comparison with other schools. We have come to the conclusion that we should safeguard the present balance in this way, and we propose, therefore, to put forward a Government amendment in Committee to the effect that if a Church or denominational body makes representations to the Secretary of State stating that a proposal by an education authority would result in a materially inequitable distribution or materially unsatisfactory standard of denominational schools compared with other schools, and if I am satisfied that these representations are justified, the proposal will require my consent.
  Mr. Frank McElhone: It appears that the hierarchy has been forced into an embarrassing and rather shabby manoeuvre by the Secretary of State. Having stood up for Catholic schools in Scotland at the Dispatch Box when I was a Minister I shall stand up equally strongly for non-Catholic schools in Scotland. May I give one constituency example? If the Adelphi secondary school is closed by the Strathclyde regional council—that is a non-denominational school and an excellent school and I am opposed to its closure—will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that I have the right of

  1011
  appeal to him? If that right is not made available, it will be seen by many as discrimination in reverse. The Government have made a shabby deal.
  Mr. Younger: The hon. Gentleman knows a great deal about these matters. He will be able to ascertain whether the Roman Catholic hierarchy takes the view that he has outlined. As far as I am aware, it is grateful for the arrangement that has been made.
  Mr. McElhone: It has been forced into it.
  Mr. Younger: On the contrary, it requested the Government to make such arrangements if they could and that is what we have done. I think that it is grateful for that.
  I emphasise that the nature of the appeal is not against the closure of the school but against any discrimination that a religious body feels has been exercised as against one denomination or another. This method of appeal is not open to a parent who wishes to object to a particular school being closed on the ground of that reason alone. The right of appeal will be open if it is an issue of discrimination of one denomination as against others.
  Mr. McElhone: Again, I press the right hon. Gentleman to answer my question about the Adelphi secondary school, a non-denominational school, which is to be closed. Will I have the right of appeal to the Secretary of State or will that right be available to parents?
  Mr. Younger: I shall have specifically to consider the case—
  Mr. Canavan: Answer the question.
  Mr. Younger: I am about to answer the question. I have got through only half the sentence so far. Labour Members seem to be getting over-excited. I shall have specifically to consider the case, but if it is a nondenominational school and if no question of denomination enters into it, there will be no right of appeal to me by means of the Act, assuming that Parliament enacts this measure. The only ground of appeal lies with denominational discrimination
  Mr. McElhone: It is discrimination reversed.
  Mr. Younger: It is not an appeal against the closure itself. It is an appeal against denominational discrimination if such is thought to have occurred. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have ample opportunity to make his views known if he wishes to do so.
  Mr. Barry Henderson: Is there not a danger that the Opposition are being hypocritical? The hon. Member for Glasgow, Queen's Park (Mr. McElhone) has made an allegation. Others have questioned the part of the Bill that we are now discussing. If there is any evidence that the Catholic Church claims that it has been pressurised as has been suggested by the hon. Gentleman, and if there is not a clear statement from the Catholic hierarchy that it wants this part of the Bill, will my right hon. Friend accept an amendment to delete it?
  Mr. Younger: I appreciate what my hon. Friend is suggesting. It is probably best in the first instance for the hon. Member for Glasgow, Queen's Park (Mr. McElhone) to ascertain from the Roman Catholic hierarchy—he is well equipped to do so—whether it approves.
  I do not want to take up any more of the time of the House. I have given way on many occasions and I hope that hon. Members will now allow me to finish my speech. I am sure that many others wish to contribute to the debate.
  1012
  I shall mention briefly some of the remaining clauses. Clauses 9, 10 and 11 are minor provisions concerning the registration of independent schools. Clause 12 merely puts it beyond doubt that an education authority has power to provide nursery teachers to work in day and residential nurseries, as some do already.
  Clause 13 amends the legislation which established the Scottish Certificate of Education Examination Board in 1963, to extend the interests which can be represented on the board, to provide for the transfer to local authorities—in effect the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities—of the responsibility I have at present for approving the board's annual estimates of income and expenditure, and to substitute charging for presentations for the present arrangements by which I set annually the contribution due from each education authority to meet board expenditure. Education authorities and managers of non-education authority establishments will be responsible for meeting the charges for the presentations they make.
  Mr. Maxton: May we have an assurance from the Secretary of State that the transfer of charges to the local authorities does not mean that local authorities will have the power to charge parents or pupils for taking examinations? There is some dubiety due to the wording of the Bill. Will he ensure that that is clarified?
  Mr. Younger: I think that I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that the local authorities will not have such power. It is a different method of payment rather than a method that involves different amounts.
  Clause 15 and schedule 6 deal with educational endowments. In accord with this Government's policy of reducing public expenditure and the size of the Civil Service, I have decided that my powers to reorganise endowments should be transferred to the Court of Session and the education authorities. The reorganisation powers of the Scottish Universities Committee of the Privy Council are also transferred to the court. I propose, however, to retain power to amend the constitutions of central institutions and I shall continue to maintain a register to aid people in search of benefits.
  Clause 16 makes minor improvements to existing legislation for admission to teacher training courses. The primary object is to allow new regulations to be more flexibly drawn. Clause 17 transfers from the Crown to the respective university courts the power to appoint the principals of the universities of St. Andrews, Glasgow and Aberdeen. The courts and senates of the three universities themselves favoured the proposed change and Her Majesty has graciously expressed herself content.
  Mr. Canavan: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Younger: Finally, I shall deal at slightly more length with clause 14 and schedule 5, which provide for new machinery for negotiating the pay and conditions of Scottish teaching staff. The proposed structure derives from recommendations by the Houghton committee.
  Mr. Maxton: Five years ago.
  Mr. Younger: Yes, exactly. In place of five existing negotiating committees dealing separately with pay and conditions there will be two new committees dealing with both pay and conditions, in the one case of teachers in schools and in the other of teachers in further education

  1013
  colleges, central institutions and colleges of education. Both committees will have representatives of the Secretary of State, the employers and of teaching staff.
  Instead of the present cumbersome procedure under which the Secretary of State gives formal effect to settlements reached in the Scottish Teachers Salaries Committee by means of a memorandum and a statutory order, the new committees will promulgate settlements to employing authorities. The Secretary of State is required after consultations to prescribe the circumstances in which there may be recourse to arbitration and the relevant procedure. He is also empowered to set aside an arbiter's award by a statutory order subject to negative resolution.
  This is a long Bill and I have taken up rather more time than I intended in describing it. However, it is an extremely important Bill which involves many education interests and is the fruit of a great deal of work within the Department. I have no doubt that hon. Members will have many matters to raise, which will be dealt with by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State when he replies.
  I am rather surprised that the Opposition, as I understand it, propose to vote against the Bill. It may be that they are under the illusion that there is nothing in the Bill but the assisted places scheme, which affects only a few in our education system. The overwhelming balance of the Bill is devoted to improvements in the general stream of Scottish education for the vast majority of pupils. It should help to lessen the situation in which for many years parents have been expected to accept on behalf of their children whatever education is dished out to them without question. This is a major step towards introducing a much wider degree of parental choice into Scottish education.
  If the Opposition vote against the Bill, they will be voting against parental choice and against the provisions for the better handling of disabled children. Further, they will be making a great mistake as many interests in Scotland will recognise that this is a Bill of great progress.
  Mr. Canavan: Name them.
  Mr. Younger: If Labour Members, having heard the debate, decide to vote against the Bill, they will be making a great mistake. It is one of the greatest education advances that we have had for a long time.
  5.20 pm
  Mr. Bruce Millan: Deapite what the Secretary of State has just said, the Bill is largely without friends. The only support for at least one clause is from Her Majesty. The right hon. Gentleman was not able to quote anyone else on the contentious clauses in the Bill. The Secretary of State ought to know—if he does not he should not be where he is—that no reputable body of educational opinion in Scotland approves of what the Government are doing on the assisted places scheme.
  The right hon. Gentleman began by saying that the Bill had to be set against a general educational background where all sorts of advances were being made in all sorts of directions in primary, secondary and post-school education. His description of what is happening in Scottish education is foreign to the experience of Opposition Members, and also to general educational opinion, on the current state of Scottish education, which is facing a series of crises, largely as a result of Government-imposed cuts
  1014
  in public expenditure. When we consider some of the provisions of the Bill, which we welcome in principle— for example, the provisions on special education—we see how little reality there is in the claim by the Secretary of State that the provisions will make an appreciable difference to education in Scotland, given that there are no additional resources to be made available for them.
  We must consider the Bill also, against the background of the prospects of employment for school leavers. According to the January figures, more than 20,000 school leavers are at present unemployed. That is a considerable increase on the year before. The prospects for those who will leave school in the summer of 1981 are bleaker than they have been since the end of the war. That is the reality of the situation that faces our young people, and unless yesterday's disastrous decision about Linwood can be reversed, it will make the situation considerably worse for young people in the West of Scotland. What is happening in Linwood in the West of Scotland is happening all over Scotland. The right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends should know that. It is against that background that we must consider the Bill. It is for those reasons that we say that the proposals are irrelevant to the needs of Scottish education.
  The greatest irrelevancy is the assisted places scheme. I said that the Secretary of State was not able to produce one reputable body of educational opinion in Scotland that was in favour of the assisted places scheme. It is no good trying to pretend that the scheme will not cost more, when every other educational provision in Scotland is being cut. Additional money is being put into that scheme. My hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) gave some of the figures.
  The Labour Government decided that, over five years—incidentally, I now regret that decision—the assistance to grant-aided schools was to be phased out. In 1978–79 the amount of money going to grant-aided schools was reduced to £1½1 million. In the current financial year, 1980–81, that figure has been trebled to £3½4 million, when every other sort of educational expenditure in Scotland has been cut. Every day we read in the newspapers about a further cut in educational provision in Scotland. Today we read about a reduction in the number of post graduate studentships. Every day there is a further sign of more cuts.
  The Secretary of State does not apologise for, but glories in, the cuts that he is making in Scottish education, yet this small, privileged sector of Scottish education, which is of no interest to the majority of our constituents and the constituents of every hon. Member, including Conservative Members, has been given favoured treatment by the Secretary of State over the past couple of years. The provisions in the Bill will give that sector even more favoured treatment over the next few years, unless, of course, we can remove these provisions before the Bill reaches the statute book.
  We know why those provisions are in the Bill. They are there not only because Conservative Members are more concerned about private education than about the education that is provided for the majority of the nation's children, but because many of them have a positive dislike and hatred of local authority education. They have no interest in seeing that the education provided for the majority of our people is strengthened and improved as it should be. Education is, instead, being damaged by much of the Government's action.

  1015
  Who will benefit from these provisions? If the Secretary of State can answer that question it will be a change, because he was not able to answer any questions during his own speech. Will he tell us which children are meant to benefit from the assisted places scheme? Will it be the least able, the most able, or something in between?
  Mr. Younger: The answer is that by definition, low-income families will benefit. No one will benefit from the scheme by one penny unless a low income is being earned. The right hon. Gentleman refers to such people as privileged. How can they be privileged if they are lowincome families?
  Mr. Millan: Will the right hon. Gentleman now answer my question? Will able children, less able children or a cross-section of children with all grades of ability benefit from the scheme? Why does he not answer the question?
  Mr. Younger: I do not answer the question because I do not understand the point of it. The people who will benefit from the scheme will, by definition, be those with low incomes. Some may be very able, some may be not particularly able and some may be not very able. There is no restriction according to the ability of the child. The decision on whether the child will benefit will depend upon whether the family is on a low income. The right hon. Gentleman must decide and say clearly to the House whether he approves or disapproves of helping lowincome families. Why are they privileged if they are on low incomes?
  Mr. Millan: The right hon. Gentleman is not answering my question. Either he does not know the answer, or he is unwilling to give the answer to the House. The Under-Secretary, who is not responsible for education, is now whispering the answer to him. Why cannot the Secretary of State give us the answer? It will depend on whom the schools select for entry to the scheme. Is that the answer?
  We shall ask a second question following that. Will any conditions be laid down by the Secretary of State for selecting children for the scheme, with the schools seeing that they cover a range of ability, or are we dealing only with the most able pupils? Will he give an answer to that question, which is fair? I should like to have the information.
  Mr. Younger: I still do not understand what the right hon. Gentleman is getting at. There is no definition of range of ability. The children who benefit may be of any ability—good, bad or indifferent. The common factor is that their families will all have low incomes and will all wish to exercise a choice in education. The right hon. Gentleman must come clean and tell us whether he approves of low-income families having a choice in education. Will he answer that simple question?
  Mr. Millan: We may be making a little progress, although what the right hon. Gentleman says is not in accordance with my understanding of the situation. The abolition of selection at secondary school level was opposed by Conservative Members, although it has been the greatest step towards freedom of choice for ordinary children. Is the Secretary of State saying that he will ensure that the schools will admit children of a whole
  1016
  range of ability? If that is his intention, it is news to me and to the schools concerned. I hope that that is the intention.
  Mr. Ernie Ross: Dundee high school's preliminary form indicates that children will have to sit an entrance examination.
  Mr. Millan: That is why I say that what the Secretary of State has just said will be news to the schools that are enthusiastically asking to participate in the scheme. The schools will not participate if he makes it a condition that they take the whole range of ability. I repeat that the measure is concerned with a small, privileged section of Scottish education.
  There is no parental choice in a selective system. The greatest step towards choice came through comprehensive reorganisation. That movement has been almost wholly accepted by educational opinion in Scotland. I agree that there has to be some flexibility in local authority arrangements for admission to particular schools, especially at secondary level. The Secretary of State did not give much information about the authorities that do not exercise flexibility. What authorities do not pay attention to the wishes of parents, particularly over appeals against original allocation of schools?
  I shall give some figures that demonstrate that, by and large, Scottish education authorities treat sympathetically appeals against original allocation. In 1980 Lothian region had 391 appeals, of which 265 were granted and 126 refused. The figures for earlier years also show that most of the appeals were granted. In 1980, out of 300 appeals in Central region, 226 were granted and only 74 refused. In the same year in Strathclyde region, out of 3,707 appeals 3,373 were granted. In most cases the appeal systems that operate in education authorities in Scotland are satisfactory.
  I do not believe that it is sensible to legislate on such matters. The Bill sets up a cumbersome structure and we may find that a number of appeals that would have been granted under existing arrangements will not be granted. A balance has always to be struck between parental choice and administrative practicalities. Clause 1 lays down a whole range of circumstances in which an education authority must be allowed to exclude parental choice. The system will also become more rigid. Education authorities will have to lay down optimum numbers not only for each school overall, but at each level where it appears likely that there will be an excessive demand for places. That will create a bureaucratic structure that will cost authorities much more money than the amount provided for in the explanatory and financial memorandum.
  The scheme has other deficiencies. In Strathclyde, for example, school councils handle appeals successfully. Schedule 1 provides for an appeal committee, and the school councils will apparently be excluded. In addition, the appeal committee will be made up mainly of members of the authority or the education committee of the authority. I do not disagree with that. Given the responsibilities of the education authority, it is difficult to have an independent appeal committee.
  When the Bill is enacted, if the appeal committee turns down the appeal, it will then go not to the Secretary of State, but to the sheriff. The issues to be decided in such appeals are not suitable to be dealt with on a legal basis. The right hon. Gentleman says that he is concerned that

  1017
  people on low incomes and with modest backgrounds should be able to exercise their rights of educational choice, but the worst possible way is by providing, for appeal through the sheriff. The appeal should be to the Secretary of State. Ordinary people do not like legal complications. I do not believe that the process will even be legally aided.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Alexander Fletcher): It will be.
  Mr. Millan: I am grateful for that information. However, I still feel that the appeal should not be to the sheriff. The matters to be decided are not merely the objective circumstances. There is an additional test of reasonableness. That sort of decision should be made by the Secretary of State, not by sheriffs. When the Undersecretary replies to the debate, will he say whether the sherriffs have been consulted and, if so, whether they are happy to take on the additional responsibility? I think that responsibility should not be placed on the sheriffs. The procedure is potentially unworkable in other respects, and it may lead to considerable disorganisation and dislocation in certain schools.
  The Opposition are opposed to another aspect of the Bill, which again arises from the determination of the Secretary of State not to leave these matters to the good sense of the education authorities, but to prescribe all the rules himself in the form of legislation. I refer to the right hon. Gentleman's intention to publish examination results for individual schools. Not one body of educational opinion in Scotland has approved that proposal. Teacher organisations and others are wholly opposed to the publication of crude, external examination results for individual schools, because of the way in which the results can be misinterpreted and misunderstood.
  Taken by themselves, the results are not a true test of how well a school has done. The matter has to be considered in relation to the circumstances surrounding the school—for example, the area in which it is located and from which it draws its pupils, and many other considerations. Once we enter the area of legislation—which is not necessary for Scotland—and try to lay down rules, instead of leaving matters to the education authorities, we get into all sorts of difficulties. For example, we must provide all the loopholes on which the education authority can rely to turn down an appeal. That may lead to a more rigid system than at present. There will also be difficulties about the publication of examination results.
  While the clauses may appear to represent an advance for parental choice, the reality will be a good deal less than that. In many circumstances, parents will be a good deal worse off under this legislation than they will be if individual authorities in Scotland—who are basically willing—are encouraged to improve their administrative and other arrangements for dealing with appeals. In a period of falling school population it should be possible for education authorities to operate rather more flexible admission arrangements than has been the tradition. That is the way forward, rather than laying down rules in legislation.
  I turn to clauses 3 and 4, which relate to special education. The Secretary of State was asked what additional money would be made available. He said that
  1018
  he would look into the matter and answer the question later. He does not have to look into the matter and answer later, because the answer is in the explanatory and financial memorandum, in paragraph 1 on page v. No additional money will be made available for special educational needs. The Secretary of State should know that. Either he knows it but is not willing to disclose it to the House, or he does not know it, in which case he should not be introducing the Bill. As my hon. Friends have pointed out, without additional resources for special education the changes in the legal structure—important as they are—will, at the end of the day, have little or no effect on the quality and range of education for the unfortunate minority of children in Scotland who require special education.
  The present legislative arrangements for Scotland are not all that old. They date from as recently as 1969. However, I agree that the changes provided for in the Bill should be made. I am simply saying that nothing of any substance will arise from the Bill to provide improved education for those children. Some aspects of the appeal procedure, including the appeal to the sheriff and the question of grant-aided or independent schools, will require considerable attention in Committee.
  Despite my dislike of private education, grant-aided and independent schools, I agree—although I make a distinction here—that certain independent schools, usually run on a non-profit-making basis by voluntary bodies, are necessary to deal with certain aspects of special education. The figures that I quoted earlier did not include assistance to those schools. There is no party difference about those schools. I am not against the provision in the Bill that allows a parent, in certain circumstances, to ask a local authority to send his or her child to one of the non-local authority schools that provide special education for children with disabilities—for example, blind or deaf children. Obviously such provisions must be included in the Bill, but I do not believe that the provisions for appeal are sufficient to protect the interests of local education authorities, which are genuinely trying to build up provisions for such children within their local arrangements.
  Mr. Peter Fraser: The right hon. Gentleman has explained his attitude towards children with disabilities. He said that he would not take exception to such children being sent to independent schools. Does he include in that classification or exception children of special ability, especially children who are musically gifted?
  Mr. Millan: The assisted places scheme is not concerned with what the hon. Gentleman is suggesting. It is concerned with privilege and, in many cases, sheer snobbery. In that respect we are talking not about special ability, but about giving additional financial assistance to those who simply want to contract out of the local education system for reasons that have nothing to do with education.
  I pass from the question of special education to that of school closures. The provisions in the Bill may seem to be an advance on the face of it—this is true of much of the Bill—because the argument is that it gets the Secretary of State off the backs of local education authorities, but in truth, the provisions are included for entirely different reasons. The clause relating to closures is included

  1019
  because the Secretary of State is currently encouraging local education authorities to close small schools, especially rural schools, in Scotland. That is the reality. Not only rural schools, but schools in cities too are being closed. They are being closed not against the right hon. Gentleman's wishes, but with his positive encouragement. That is why there is a continuing toll of school closures. It has not proved difficult in the past for the Secretary of State to be the final appeal authority for school closures. That was not a tremendous burden on the Scottish Office. During my period in the Scottish Office all such matters were dealt with personally by Ministers.
  I do not remember spending a great deal of time considering school closures, because the number if closures was small, but the position has changed now, because the Secretary of State is asking local authorities to close their schools. In his typical, dodging manner, he does not want to be associated with that. He wants them to do his dirty work for him. That is the reality of clause 6. The right hon. Gentleman pretends that it will no longer be his responsibilty, but then includes a provision that says that parents must be consulted. In my experience, no Secretary of State—and this is true of myself and, I believe, of former Conservative Secretaries of State—ever allowed a school to be closed without assuring himself that the parents had been properly consulted before authority was given. The Bill provides no additional protection to ensure that consultation takes place.
  Consultation does, of course, take place. Indeed, no school is closed without consultation. In some cases a school is not closed because the Secretary of State decides that the education authority is not behaving reasonably. The right hon. Gentleman is trying to get out of having to take unpleasant decisions. He is perfectly happy that these decisions should be taken by somebody else. The Government's policy lies behind the need for those unpleasant decisions to be taken. Once the law is changed in this way, qualifications and special provisions have to be inserted.
  The Secretary of State gave a rather elaborate explanation of the provisions for denominational schools and the amendment that is to be introduced in Committee.
  The right hon. Gentleman can try to explain the issue as much as he likes. He can explain it to the House, and his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State can explain it in Committee. If two school closures take place in any area—whether in Glasgow or anywhere else—and if one concerns a denominational school, and the other a nondenominational school, the Secretary of State may believe that the parents will find it acceptable for an appeal to be able to be made to him in one case, but not in the other. If the right hon. Gentleman believes that, he could not be more misinformed about the feelings that are engendered by such issues.
  The Secretary of State is going down an extremely dangerous road. He has admitted that there will be a need to appeal to him about denominational schools, but there will be an equal need to appeal to him about non-denominational schools. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to avoid a good deal of unnecessary aggravation, bitterness and resentment, the answer is not to introduce further amendments that will deal with one category of school, but to withdraw the clause. We should maintain the present system, under which school closures need the
  1020
  Secretary of State's authority. In that way there can be no suggestion that one section of the community is being treated more favourably than another.
  I hope that the right hon. Gentleman listened to the points that were made by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Queens Park (Mr. McElhone), because he knows a good deal more about Catholic education than does the Secretary of State. Instead of giving those rather self-satisfied answers, the right hon. Gentleman should have listened more carefully.
  I turn to the pay machinery contained in clause 14. This is another example of a clause that says one thing and means another. The Secretary of State's speech did not disclose the reality behind the clause. I welcome the revision of the committees and their rationalisation into two committees—one for schools and one for post-school education. It is right that salaries and conditions of service should be considered together. I say that in defence of local authorities. It might be convenient for the teachers to keep the two items separate, but education authorities also have some rights. Therefore, salaries and conditions of service should be considered by one committee.
  There are difficulties about the composition of the teachers' side of the committee. The Bill does not meet those difficulties. However, we can return to that problem in Committee. The Secretary of State must know that even if we get things right it will still be possible for one union to dominate the teacher's side of the committee. I am not sure how that can be avoided, because various teaching unions have different views.
  I am more interested in what will happen to the management side of the committee. The Secretary of State told us nothing about that, yet he is represented on the management side. He has never told us how he operates in such matters—or at least when he has told us how he operates we have not believed him. Until now, not only was the Secretary of State—or his representative—part of the committee, but there was a "concordat" between him and the education authorities. As a result, he had a deciding voice in the total offer made by the Scottish Teachers' Salaries Committee. That was well known. The authorities did not like it, nor did the teachers, but it was an honest way of dealing with the matter.
  Under that system everyone knew that the offer had the Secretary of State's approval. There is now a different, and completely dishonest way of behaving. The Secretary of State can now say that the offer has nothing to do with him. He does not care what the managament side offers. He does not intervene. However, only 6 per cent. will be provided in the rate support grant. The management side can do anything that it likes. The right hon. Gentleman does not care whether 60 per cent. is offered, but he will provide only 6 per cent. That is a fairly dishonest way of behaving. It means that the local education authority has to do all the dirty work. Indeed, the whole Bill is concerned with taking the dirty work away from the Secretary of State and passing it on to the education authorities.
  It is humbug to say that the education authorities will have greater freedom. That is clearly illustrated by the arbitration provisions. Although the Secretary of State says that he does not want anything to do with arbitration, he will—under the Bill—be able to set an award aside without giving any reason. Under existing legislation,

  1021
  such an award can be set aside only if national economic circumstances determine that that should be so. The House makes that judgment.
  The Bill contains an unjustified provision which will enable the Secretary of State to intervene on any ground. Indeed, there are parallels with another Bill that is now being considered in Committee. The right hon. Gentleman is judge and jury in his own case. He may simply say that he does not like the award and set it aside. That is an objectionable feature of the Bill, and we shall oppose it in Committee.
  The Bill is largely irrelevant to the needs of Scottish education. It has many objectionable features and that is why we shall vote against it tonight. It does not include certain aspects that require attention. For example, the Secretary of State still has not given a satisfactory answer to our questions about the colleges of education. Nor have we been offered a satisfactory opportunity to discuss this issue on the Floor of the House. Hon. Members should remember the fiasco in the Scottish Grand Committee, when the right hon. Gentleman did not even have the courage to vote for his own proposals, but sat there and allowed them to be defeated. I have never known a greater muddle when debating education or any other subject. I have never known an education issue in which the personal integrity of the Secretary of State and of the Undersecretary has been more at stake or more criticised by responsible educational interests.
  I am not accusing right hon. and hon. Members of being liars. I know that that is not part of our parliamentary procedure. The right hon. Gentleman and the Undersecretary know that educational interests in Scotland have accused them of being liars. If the right hon. Gentleman had any regard for his reputation he would be more than anxious for the matter to be fully debated and ventilated in the House. I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would be more than anxious to demonstrate that his figures for the savings that will result from the closures are accurate, and to show that the alternative figures provided by the colleges are inaccurate. I should have thought the right hon. Gentleman would be more than anxious to have such matters fully debated in the House, particularly as he knows that he has not convinced half the members of the House of Commons Scottish Tory group. The Secretary of State is dodging the issue and he has got the Leader of the House, on successive Thursdays, to dodge it as well.
  We do not intend to let this matter rest. Even if it cannot be discussed on the Bill, it will have to be properly discussed. On this, as on so many issues in Scottish education, and indeed a considerable number of other matters for which he has responsibility, the Secretary of State's reputation is in tatters. It will certainly not be enhanced by this shabby and dishonest Bill. That is why we shall vote against it this evening.
  6 pm
  Mr. Michael Ancram: We heard from the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) what amounted to a reselection speech. It bore very little relation to the Bill, but a great deal of relation to other matters on which he felt he could make a populist speech. To the extent that he dealt with the Bill, he did so
  1022
  with a series of questions. On the meat of the Bill, his speech was more of an interview than a constructive contribution to the debate.
  Certain of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks filled me with great surprise. He said, for instance, that he did not think that sheriffs were the right people to decide what was in the best interests of children. If he were to ask his colleague, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), he might learn that sheriffs spend a great deal of the time dealing with custody and access cases, and deciding what is in the best interests of children. As the right hon. Gentleman himself said later, and as many of his colleagues are saying in the Standing Committee on another Bill, the discretion of the Secretary of State is sometimes too widespread. Yet here is another area in which he would like it to be increased. To me, that part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech defied both comprehension and reality.
  The most indicative part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech was what it lacked. I listened very carefully to what he said and I made a number of notes. One thing was lacking, namely, anything about parents. That sums up the attitude of Labour Members to education. They seem to think that it is a matter for the State rather than for parents. Conservative Members believe that education is about children and parents, and I believe that that is the spirit in which the Bill has been introduced.
  Mr. Robert Hughes: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us where in the Bill one finds the paramountcy of parental choice?
  Mr. Ancram: If the hon. Gentleman will be patient, I shall refer in the course of my speech to what the Bill does for parental involvement and participation. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, this is a progressive measure. In a sense, for the first time in many years, it takes Scottish education out of the crystallised cobweb of bureaucracy in which it has been stuck for far too long. Most important of all—I shall explain why in a moment—the Bill brings the parent back into the educational picture.
  Mr. Robert Hughes: Where?
  Mr. Ancram: I shall come to that in my own time. It does this in a real, practical way which will itself create a greater involvement of parents.
  The principle that parents should have a major say in how their children are educated is widely regarded as a human right, but the present structure has effectively denied parents that right. From what the right hon. Member for Craigton, and some of his colleagues have said, it seems that there is an underlying horror in their minds at the idea that parents might know best what is good for their children. I hope that they will tell us in the course of the debate whether they believe in parental choice. Do they accept that part of the Charter of Human Rights that says that parents should have the right to choose where and how their children are educated? Do they believe that? If they do not, they should come clean about it.
  The present law regarding parental choice is a dog's breakfast. The principle of choice is enshrined in law. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State read out the relevant section. The principle that a parent has the right to decide how his child should be educated is enshrined in

  1023
  the law, but it does not—or, if originally it did, it cannot now—provide the means for allowing such choice effectively to be practised.
  In my view, the basic problem has been the introduction of rigid catchment zones, which was part of a philosophy of levelling down, which has created the equivalent of "bos-ing" in certain cities and which at the end of the day allows bureaucrats to try their hand at some form of social engineering. That has led to the most insidious form of choice, namely, the choice that can be exercised only by having the cash to buy a house in another area. That is happening in my constituency. I find that kind of choice unacceptable, and I believe that the Bill sets out to deal with it.
  That form of choice has given rise to an even more insidious act of bureaucratc administration. That is the idea that, if the bureaucrats do not like what is happening in an area, they can simply change the catchment zone by redrawing the line. There is an instance in my constituency in which that is likely to happen in the near future. Many people who have children at a particular school may suddenly find that those children are moved.
  Clause 1 opens the door to allow parents an element of choice.
  Mr. Robert Hughes: The hon. Gentleman's entire speech so far has been about how marvellous the Bill is in providing the paramountcy of parental right to choose. He has now given the game away by saying that clause 1 gives them "an element of choice". That is precisely why the Bill is defective.
  Mr. Ancram: Of course it is an element of choice. The hon. Gentleman must be aware, as I am sure my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench are aware, that one cannot say to everyone in the country "You can all send your children to whatever school you wish without any restriction at all", because that would cause chaos. The Government are beginning to create the flexibility which I understood even the right hon. Member for Craigton welcomed in a qualified sense, and which over a period of time under this legislation will allow parents to choose where to send their children to school.
  Mr. George Foulkes Mr. George Foulkes (South Ayrshire) rose—
  Mr. Ancram: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, but before doing so I must say that I found his behaviour deplorable in not being present to hear my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State at the beginning of the debate.
  Mr. Foulkes: I have heard the Secretary of State many times before on this subject. Before I came into the Chamber I was talking to pupils, which is the best way of finding out what is happening in the education service. The hon. Gentleman is expounding the theory of choice. I ask him to imagine a situation in which a school, because of its confines and the accommodation available, has a possible secondary intake of 100 places but 200 applications. How will the choice be made?
  Mr. Ancram: I understand that it will be up to the headmaster to decide, on the basis of the nature of his school, which children would be best served by coming to that school. That is my understanding of how the Bill will operate.
  Mr. Foulkes: This is a very interesting train of argument. I think that the hon. Gentleman is being briefed
  1024
  by the Under-Secretary of State. Let us consider the situation in which there are 200 applicants and the choice is made by the headmaster, on the basis given by the hon. Gentleman. What criteria will the headmaster use? Will the choice be based on academic ability, on sporting ability, or simply on whether the applicant's face happens to fit?
  Mr. Ancram: As I understand it, the criteria will be published. It is not for me to say what they will be. But I can tell the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Foulkes), who for some time, much to the disadvantage of education in the Lothian region, was convenor of the education committee there, that on the day of his election to this House there were more smiles in my constituency about his having left that job than perhaps at my own election.
  One of the more interesting sessions that occurred during the election campaign was when a number of Labour supporters came to see me to ask how they could get rid of the now hon. Member for South Ayrshire. I sent them out of my constituency to canvass in his, because I said that that was the most efficient way of ensuring that the hon. Gentleman no longer had a hand in education in the Lothian region.
  Mr. John MacKay: I should like to take the theory of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Foulkes) a little further. Does my hon. Friend agree that perhaps the education authority ought to take into account the fact that so many people wish to send their children to the school that the hon. Gentleman postulated? Should not that education authority ask what sort of education that school provides, and should it not ask the schools that are not attracting pupils to move in the educational direction of that popular school?
  Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It was a point that I had intended to make later. This is one of the advantages of allowing flexibility and choice within the education system. I am, however, slightly anxious about the number of exclusions for which the Bill allows. As the right hon. Member for Craigton said, it could, in effect, be used as a bureaucratic block to choice. I hope that my hon. Friend will consider this matter carefully.
  I am also anxious about the fact that it appears to be left to the local authorities to decide the capacity of the schools. In areas such as mine, where the education authority does not seem to like the idea of allowing parents to exercise choice, it seems that local authorities will be able to block the purpose of this legislation by setting optimum capacity figures too low and saying that there is no room for choice to be exercised. I hope my hon. Friend will also consider that point.
  It seems that the real argument of Labour Members, including the hon. Member for South Ayrshire, against the Bill is that in some way it will create distinctions, differences and some insidious form of privilege. In the vast number of cases in which I have been involved since the election where parents have been unable to get their children into the school of their choice they have come to see me not for reasons of distinction, difference or privilege. For example, one parent did not believe in corporal punishment, but her child attended a school in which corporal punishment was exercised. She felt that

  1025
  she should have a right to have her child removed to another school, but the Lothian education authority did not seem to be too keen on that.
  Another parent came to me because he had moved out of one catchment zone into another. At the same time he had moved nearer to the school that his children attended. Yet it was only after three or four applications to the transfer committee that it saw the sense of allowing his children to stay in the original school.
  Mr. Neil Carmichael: In an area such as mine, which until recently has had a large number of fee-paying schools, it is important to try to spell out the criteria. Whenever parents who were trying to get a choice of one of the fee-paying schools came to see me it was usually because one of the children had been admitted—perhaps the eldest son—whereas the daughter, or the youngest son, had not. As a result, the family was torn to pieces. The criteria for entry included passing an entrance examination. Is that the the sort of criterion that the hon. Gentleman thinks should be used again?
  Mr. Ancram: I apologise if I have been unclear. The hon. Gentleman appears to be talking about criteria for entrance to the assisted places scheme, whereas I have been talking about the choice within the public sector, which is being allowed for under clause 1. I was referring to the reasons why people want the ability to exercise such choice—for instance, a genuine, even though personal, dissatisfaction of a parent with the school that his child attends. If that is a strong dissatisfaction, it is important that that parent's wishes should be taken into consideration. Far from creating division, it can create an incentive to schools to level up their standards rather than continually level them down.
  In a document sent to us the Educational Institute of Scotland warned of the danger of leaving
  "ghetto schools of children of uninterested and non-inspiring parents".
  Has it ever asked itself why parents might be uninterested and non-inspiring? What incentive is there in a system that has no choice—as we so often find in the Lothian region—for the average parent to be interested or inspiring in a child's education, when the part that he can play is so strictly limited? The Bill creates flexibility, choice and variety. The change is carefully controlled, because it has to be, but in my constituency, which has had numerous problems with the transfer committee it will be warmly welcomed.
  Mr. Martin J. O'Neill: How many?
  Mr. Ancram: I shall reply to the hon. Gentleman, who has intervened from a sedentary position. The right hon. Member for Craigton said, as if it were a fantastic point, that two-thirds of transfer appeals in the Lothian region had been allowed. If there are places available, as there were in respect of many of the primary applications last year, for the other one-third, I want to ensure that, unless there is a specific, strong and stated reason—as is required by this legislation—for not allowing the parents to transfer, the transfer will be allowed. That is why I so strongly welcome what is proposed in the Bill.
  I turn to the question of appeals, which was also mentioned by the right hon. Member for Craigton. I
  1026
  welcome the clause that deals with this matter. In the past, while there has been theoretical choice, it has gone far adrift. All too often we have heard of decisions being taken in smoke-filled rooms and enclosed committees. At present, when a parent appeals to a sheriff, the law requires no reasons to be given by the sheriff court why it finds in favour of the committee. All that the sheriff must do is be satisfied that the transfer committee has "considered" the parent's application. There is no definition of the "considered", and there is no requirement for the transfer committee to tell the sheriff court the criteria or reasons for its decision in the first place. I should have thought that Labour Members would find that level of decision unacceptable, if not dangerous, in a democracy.
  The Bill provides an open appeal system through which the merits of the case can be argued and decided upon, rather than allowing an enclosed decision to be taken, which all too often may be subject to political prejudice. I cannot believe that Labour Members are against that.
  I shall not speak at length about assisted places. However, I found the remarks of the right hon. Member for Craigton bogus. He made the point that so much money would be spent, but he should appreciate that it is money that is being spent already. Although it is at present being spread across a broad area, the Government intend to apply it to the area which, in a sense, has a far greater need for it—that of the low-income families. Instead of this being an increase in privilege, I see it as a way of bridging some of the gaps and the chasms that exist within our education system. I sometimes wonder whether Labour Members are fighting the Bill because they are frightened that by dilution their favourite hobby-horse will be destroyed and they will have nothing to argue against.
  I turn to the provisions of clauses 3 and 4, which relate to special educational needs. I warmly welcome those clauses. Particularly during this year, it is right for the Government to proceed with such legislation. I should, however, like to raise one point, and it might be useful if the Minister considers it before the Bill goes into Committee. I notice that whereas it will be obligatory for education authorities to record children who come into this category from the age of 5 onwards, it will be discretionary for them to do so in respect of children below the age of 5.
  My fear is that when something is left to discretion it often is not done. While there are logical arguments for saying that the need is greater when the school age comes, there are categories of children who need assistance before that stage. I would instance deaf children. If they are ever to be schooled reasonably normally, they have to be taught to speak before they reach school age. I hope that the Minister will be prepared to consider ways of including these children within the obligation side of this provision, either in Committee or at a later stage.
  The Bill broadens educational choice. It broadens educational variety. It broadens parental involvement. I do not expect Opposition Members, or even educationists, to accept it, because it diminishes and dilutes State power and educationist power. It gives back genuine power and genuine rights to parents. It boosts the family at the expense of the State. It recognises an important human right. For those reasons, I support it wholeheartedly.
  6.20 pm
  Mr. William Hamilton: As the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Ancram) was speaking, I wondered which school he attended. The fact is that most Conservative Members went to private, fee-paying schools. When they talk about parental choice, we on the Opposition Benches tend to reach for our guns.
  There are very few bodies of informed educational opinion in Scotland that approve of the contents of the Bill. When the Secretary of State was questioned on that specific matter, he refused to answer. He knows very well that what we say is true. Not a single teaching organisation, or any educational expert opinion, agrees with the main contents of the Bill, largely because it is regarded as socially divisive. It is also regarded as highly irrelevant. My right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) has already made these points.
  I shall deal first with the irrelevance of the Bill. Neither in the short term or in the long term will the Bill make any notable, or significant comtribution towards solving the problems faced by Scottish education. My right hon. Friend made the point about school leavers. They are the seed corn. The whole future of the Scottish economy depends on how we handle the school leavers. The sad story is that these youngsters, mainly as a direct consequence of the Government's policies, are being thrown onto the scrap-heap of the dole queue. No one appears to give a damn what happens to them. If the Bill had been scrapped and replaced by a Bill dealing with a compulsory and statutory educational and vocational programme for the 16 to 19 age group, it would have received unanimous support not only in the House but throughout Scotland. We are, however, faced with the Bill before the House.
  I have a copy of The Times Educational Supplement which contains a report headed "Army service idea for young jobless." The article states:
  "The Ministry of Defence has asked the Manpower Services Commission for its views on army training for unemployed young people. The Government is considering a proposal but it will need Mrs. Thatcher's approval."
  That is the Government's approach to this problem. They want to put these youngsters in uniform. If they are put in the Army, that will get rid of those on the dole right away.
  The gloss put on the Bill is awe inspiring. The Secretary of State used phrases such as "the most inspiring" and "the most exciting" initiative since 1945. At one time, we had a tenants' charter. Now we have a parents' charter. This Government behave like a sleazy, crooked, second-hand car salesman. That is exactly how the Secretary of State behaved in trying to sell us a second-hand car riddled with rust, saying it was a magnificent vehicle, guaranteed to solve all the problems of Scottish education over the next 20 years.
  I turn to the socially divisive parts of the Bill, especially clauses 4 and 5 relating to the fee-paying sector, the grant-aided schools. The presumption, emphasised by the Secretary of State in his speech, is that a better education is available to the children of poor parents in that sector. The implication is that a superior and better education is available to those who can pay and an inferior one in schools that happen to be attended by 95 per cent, or more of all school children in Scotland. The Government are taking steps to emphasise the superiority of the one for the privileged minority and the inferior status of that to which 95 per cent, or more of the children of Scotland go.
  1028
  An article in the Daily Record today deals with parental choice. It refers to this scheme of creaming kids off from the State sector into these other schools and says:
  "The charter"—
  that is to say, this parental choice lark that the Tories are trying to sell—
  "has been given a mixed reception. The general view in education circles is that there are so many snags attached, the provisions will make little difference. A recent survey showed that eight out of ten families were happy with the schools their children attended."
  That is the measure of the general consent in Scotland with the way things are now operated. The Bill recognises that it is not the case that parents can have any meaningful choice, even within the present situation or within the terms of the Bill. The Bill lays down in clause 1 a whole lot of exceptions. A whole page of the Bill is covered with special cases in which parents cannot have their choice. There are 10 reasons why parents cannot have that choice. For the Government to pretend that the Bill gives wider choice is nonsense and is known to be nonsense by everyone interested in education in Scotland Insofar as it works at all, it will mean that the abler children will be creamed off from the State sector and put into that top 4 or 5 per cent. That is why the Bill is socially divisive.
  My right hon. Friend tried to pin down the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State talked about children of poorer families. The fact is that such children will have to pass an entrance examination. To emphasise its socially divisive nature, the Government have provided additional resources.
  My hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) has made the point, as did my right hon. Friend, that additional resources have been put into the private privileged sector while 95 per cent, of children attend schools which are short of staff and face threat of closure.
  The Government are encouraging authorities throughout Scotland to sack teachers. That emphasises the divide between one section of the country and another. When the Prime Minister and her cohorts mouth phrases about one nation, let me tell her and the Government that no Government since the war have done more to divide the nation in educational terms, job terms and social services provision than this. Government. The Bill is part of the same process.
  If there were a public opinion poll in Scotland on this Bill, I should like to gamble on the outcome. The humbug that is perpetrated daily by the Prime Minister and other Government spokesmen about uniting this nation is denied by this legislation. It is an outstanding example of it.
  Mr. Foulkes: In effect, there was a public opinion poll on this issue at the last general election. The Conservative Party's election manifesto commitment on the matter was overwhelmingly rejected by the people of Scotland.
  Mr. Hamilton: We make that point whenever a Bill of this sort is introduced.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Craigton asked the Secretary of State about the method by which schools are closed. In the name of so-called freedom for the education authorities, the Secretary of State is passing the buck. He is getting them to do his dirty work, and he is giving them the so-called freedom to take the unpopular decisions that are a direct consequence of his policies. What freedom does the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Act—the so-called tenants' charter—give to local

  1029
  authorities? The Secretary of State told local authorities that they would be compelled to sell council houses at knock-down prices.
  Mr. Henderson: That was nothing to do with the tenants' charter.
  Mr. Hamilton: I am saying that that was the misleading trade description of the Act. It gave the tenant the right to buy his house, but there was no obligation on the part of the local authority that owned the house to sell it. This legislation is in line with that Act. It is divisive between those who have and those who have not. The Government are in for a rough passage with the Bill in Committee. They had better get out their midnight oil, because they will need every gallon of it.
  6.33 pm
  Mr. Iain Sproat: The hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) referred to the freedom of local authorities with regard to the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Act and to the freedom of local authorities with regard to the Bill. The Bill is an extension of freedom, not because it has anything to do with freedom for or from local authorities, but because it extends freedom of choice to parents. That is the central principle on the Government side of the House, just as the central principle of the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Act was the extension of the principle of freedom of choice to the tenants. It gave them the chance to own their houses if they wished to do so, just as the Bill extends the rights of parents to send their children to the schools that they prefer, even if the local authorities do not.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that if there was one phrase or theme on which he would like to concentrate, it was that of freedom. He is right. That theme runs through the Bill. It is the principle to which the Government are dedicated—to taking control from bureaucracies and restoring it to individuals, taking power from central authorities and restoring it to individuals and families. That right is taken from local authorities over housing and restored to tenants in the same way as the Government are seeking to put the emphasis on indirect taxation rather than direct taxation, and are seeking to restore freedom of choice to individuals in medical matters. They are doing the same in education. That is the principle upon which the Bill is so strongly and rightly based.
  I should like to exemplify the theme of freedom in some aspects of the Bill. Clause 1 deals with the parents' charter, which has been much derided by Labour Members during the debate. That was one of our manifesto commitments. We stated:
  "Our parents' charter will place a clear duty on government and local authorities to take account of parents' wishes when allocating children to schools, with a local appeals system for those dissatisfied."
  That is what we promised, and that is what we have done. I believe that hardly a parent in Scotland, apart from the most rabid Socialists who put political dogma above the interests of their children, will not welcome the extra freedom of choice that the parents' charter gives to them.
  Mr. Henderson: Is it not a fact that the Consumers Association has particularly welcomed that?
  Mr. Sproat: My hon. Friend makes a good point, and I look forward later to hearing speeches from Labour Members trying to deny it. I hope that when they do so, they will quote the document that my hon. Friend mentioned, because they will find the words taken out of their mouths and denied therein.
  I have listened to the speeches this afternoon and to speeches from certain local authorities in Scotland. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Ancram) that some authorities will do everything in their power to frustrate the will of Parliament and parents. They will seek to use the objections that are rightly written into clause 1 in terms of expense and numbers to do so. I hope that my right hon. Friend and his colleagues in the Scottish Office will make certain that no local authority in Scotland will be able to frustrate the will of the people over the Bill, as they have tried to do by delay or false reports in the case of the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Act.
  One other point is worth making in regard to the extension of freedom of choice. At present, if parents are desperately keen for their children not to go to one school, but to go to another local authority school, they are compelled to try to get another house in another catchment area simply to be able to do so. That is an undoubted fact, and if the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Foulkes) does not know it, he does not know anything about the needs of parents in Scotland. [Interruption.] I am told that the hon. Gentleman has done that himself. The House can draw its conclusions from the hon. Gentleman's sedentary non-interruption.
  Mr. Foulkes: I hope that I shall have the opportunity later to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and elaborate on that point in great detail, and I hope that the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) will be present to hear me.
  Mr. Sproat: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will also take the opportunity to explain to his hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central why he was educated where he was. It would be interesting to hear a dialogue between the hon. Gentlemen on that aspect.
  In our Conservative manifesto we also said that schools should be required to publish details of their examination and other results.
  Mr. William Hamilton: League tables.
  Mr. Sproat: The hon. Member for Fife, Central says "League tables". I do not suppose that there is anyone in the House or anyone in education who seriously thinks that examination results are the only criterion by which the excellence of a school should be judged. Surely no sensible person will deny that examination results have a very important part to play in judging the success of a school. Whether or not anyone in the House believes that examination results are important, it is not up to us to deny parents information about examination results.
  We are not saying that a school must publish its examination results and that on those results parents will make their judgment. We are simply seeking to make the information freely available. If parents wish to send their children to a school which achieves very high academic results, so be it. But there will be many parents who will prefer to send their children to a school where the discipline is better, or where the sport or the music facilities are better.

  1031
  We on the Conservative Benches do not choose to tell people how to decide to which school to send their children. Our aim is to provide parents with all the information they require in order to be able to make up their own minds. Indeed, in that very phrase "to make up their own minds" lies the central difference between Conservative and Labour philosophies. We believe that people should have the right to make up their own minds, whereas Labour Members try to prevent people from doing that.
  No doubt, where the examination results are not at first sight very impressive, headmasters will say to parents and to prospective parents that the reason is that they prefer to concentrate on character building than on trying to tune up the intelligence quotients of their pupils. Parents will be able to make distinctions, and no doubt those distinctions will be valid. None the less, it will benefit parents to have the maximum information published. Schools will be able to make their own cases explaining why examination results or other aspects of education are higher or lower in the scale. It will be up to the parents to make the choice, not the local authorities. That is the prime principle that is involved in the Bill.
  The right hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) implied that there would be certain schools in which the rolls would fall simply because parents would not want to send their children to those schools. That may very well happen, but if parents demonstrate—by, as it were, voting with their children's feet—that they do not want their children to go to a particular school, perhaps they will be telling us something about that school. The local authority may then ask the headmaster why his school is consistently not chosen by parents and suggest that he do something to make it more appealing to parents. In effect, this is a piece of educational democracy, because it is giving to parents the right to tell local education authorities in which respects they believe on education to be inadequate.
  But it is not only a matter of criticism; it is also a matter of praise. The hon. Member for South Ayrshire gave an idiotic example in which 200 people wanted to send their children to the same school. Surely if that happened it would be wonderful praise for the school involved. Just as some comments from parents would indicate to the local authority where schools were failing, other comments would indicate where certain schools were successful. That would enable the local authority to say what parents wanted, and to urge that other schools should provide more of it.
  Mr. Ernie Ross: In Dundee there is a school from which almost every parent would like to remove his child. I refer to Rockwell high school. But parents cannot do so, because of the failure of the hon. Gentleman's Government to provide funds for Tayside region and the failure to build the Ardler high school. For that reason, children have to go to a school that is described as being below standard and that is 50 or 60 years old. In that instance, the parents have absolutely no choice.
  Mr. Sproat: I shall be interested to hear my hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Mr. Fraser) deal with the problems of Dundee if he manages to catch your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker. But in general, as a result of the Bill, parents will have more chance of not being compelled to send their children to the school in question than they would if the Bill did not exist.
  1032
  Clause 5 deals with the assisted places scheme. This is not, as has been explained, a major part of the Bill in terms of the number of children that it will affect, although one would not think so, judging from the volume of comment from the Labour Benches. None the less, although it is a minor part of the Bill, it also exemplifies the principle of freedom with which the Bill—and, I hope, all our Bills—is informed. What is certainly true is that parents who would not otherwise be able to afford to send their children to grant-aided and independent schools will be able to do so as a result of the Bill.
  This cannot be claimed to be privilege, because the only children involved will be children of parents on low incomes. Labour Members may twist the English language as they will, but they cannot equate low-income families with privileged families. When Labour Members talk about privilege it simply shows that they are determined to twist the words of the Bill and to refuse to recognise the realities of it.
  There is no doubt that the assisted places scheme will help those children whom Labour Members ought to want to help—the children of low-income families. It will enable parents to widen their choice by sending their children to the schools that they choose rather than the schools that the local authorities may nominate. The assisted places scheme, like the parents' charter, enlarges the freedom of every parent in Scotland. For that reason, I warmly support the Bill.
  6.46 pm
  Mr. Gordon Wilson: The main criticism of the Bill must be that it is fraudulent in the way in which it is presented. When there is talk of the parents' charter, it has to be accepted that, perhaps apart from the Lothian region, for which special legislation is being made, most other areas of Scotland provide choice to parents who object to their children going to particular schools. My experience of Tayside region—a local authority with which I am usually at variance—is that the education department goes out of its way to try to meet the wishes of parents.
  It is perfectly possible for the Government to produce an improved procedure by which the parents' wishes can be achieved, but to pin the whole case for the Bill on the claim that it is a so-called parents' charter comes into the realms of fraud. Indeed, we are discussing the Bill in a context in which the money being made available to education is being cut back. So the Government, on the one hand, are talking in rhetorical terms about freedom of choice, but, on the other hand, their educational expenditure policies are restricting the development of an improved education system.
  Many schools in Scotland are under the threat of closure-—about 50 this year, ranging from remote rural primary schools to at least one urban secondary school. So the choice of school—in numerical terms and in terms of distance—will be narrower for parents than it would otherwise be by the time that this year has ended.
  The Government are asking local authorities to reduce their spending by about £20 million this year. The recently published Scottish Education Department statistics indicate that the Government are expecting a reduction of 4,250 teachers in education authorities this year, to comply with the cutbacks. If there are declining school rolls—as undoubtedly there are—that should be used as a method by which to improve the quality and standard of

  1033
  education in our schools. It is a contradiction in terms to say that the Government are planning greater freedom in choice when they are busily running down the system instead of improving it. Real freedom will come only when standards and expenditure in State schools meet the expectations of all those involved—teachers, pupils, parents and the future employers who expect good standards to be achieved by the school leavers whom they seek as employees.
  One of the problems facing our schools is the difficulty of motivating pupils. I have a letter from a school's council which said that, because of the lack of opportunity which children know that they will have when they leave school to get a job, they cannot see any reason why they should push ahead and work hard to improve their educational capability. It could be said that that is a job for parents. But children are realists. Against the backdrop of the declining economic situation, they realise that qualifications may not help. They may know someone two or three years older who is leaving school with the lower or higher leaving certificates who will not get a job. Even university graduates are finding it difficult to get jobs. It is therefore hardly surprising to hear school councils say that it is difficult to motivate children to work hard.
  In surveys about deprivation several years ago it was well understood that deprivation could be eradicated if opportunities for work and the quality of life were improved. Education is just one piece of that jigsaw. If opportunities for work are not provided, the ability of schools and teachers, however dedicated, to improve the education of the children will be affected, because the co-operation of the children is needed.
  It is a sad reflection on the piecemeal approach to Scottish education that 60 per cent, of our youngsters leave school without qualifications. The Government should tell us more about the pilot schemes for the implementation of the Munn and Dunning reports. The scheme seems to be dragging on interminably. I believe that 1986 is the expected date of implementation.
  Mr. John MacKay: I was about to draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the Munn and Dunning reports as a way of reaching those pupils who cannot do O grades. The worst thing that any Government could have done with Munn and Dunning was to impose the scheme on schools. I can assure the hon. Gentleman from bitter experience that resources have nothing to do with it. Pushing proposals on schools without proper trials is a certain road to disaster.
  Mr. Wilson: I am prepared to accept part of what the hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. MacKay) says, because I agree that to rush implementation could be potentially disastrous. It is a matter of common sense. However, the implementation seems to be going ahead at an extremely slow pace. Criticism of a non-party political nature can be made of the speed at which the Government are moving.
  During the recess I visited a secondary school. I met a group of teachers there who had gathered from other schools in the Tayside region. Their meeting was part of the warm-up and response to the two reports. It was clear that the proposed scheme was intended to introduce the reforms which had been approved. But I believe that the
  1034
  pace of implementation is too slow considering the almost 100 per cent, backing for the reports. I know that some people object to them, but they are in a distinct minority.
  The Government seem to be shifting the blame for the closure of schools and colleges from their own door to that of the education authorities. During the IMF cuts, the Scottish Office, under the Labour Administration, was very willing to answer parliamentary questions about the detailed actions of and responsibilities for local government, but it was unwilling to do so once it became apparent that those cuts were to be passed on to local authorities. The unpopularity also was passed on.
  It appears that the Secretary of State has learnt one or two practical political lessons. His Government and his Department, with the help of the Treasury, will the means by which some schools are to be kept open. Therefore, he has some responsibility. It is somewhat cynical that this measure, which has been introduced with a blast of trumpets as a parents' charter, should be a way of sliding out of any responsibility, except in the small concession made for Roman Catholic schools.
  I shall say a word or two about the appeals procedure in relation to parental choice. It seems reasonable to have a committee composed of people who are not necessarily members of the local authority. The case could be argued as though it were the type of tribunal which deals with simple complaints about the levels of rates or valuations.
  However, it is rather surprising that, after the appeal stage, it is necessary for the parent to apply to the sheriff, not on a ground of law, which is normal in appeals to tribunals, but in order to bring about a re-hearing of the evidence. This is a most unusual appeal system. Are there any parallels for it in other legislation? Also, I hope that the Government will justify why they need a double-barrelled approch to the appeal system, instead of an appeal on fact to the committee and then an appeal on law to the sheriff.
  As a solicitor, I tend to favour appeals to the sheriff court because it is a way of keeping the profession in work. But, I know from experience, that the cost tends to inhibit many people from taking appeals further. I notice that the reference to expenses is somewhat ambivalent. It will need a very determined parent to take an appeal to the sheriff.
  Double standards are being brought into play in the proposal for assisted places. I cannot understand the justice of this proposal at a time when the public sector is facing enormous cutbacks. I have never been a devotee of grant-aided schools, and I voted against the aid given to them in the past. But it is entirely unjustifiable to give £800,000 at a time when an enormous retrenchment is taking place and when facilities are not being provided by the Government for the improvement of the system. It is downright disgraceful. The Government may say that the proposal is justified because it is based on their party manifesto, but it is entirely wrong to bring it forward at a time when they are cutting back the State sector by about £20 million.
  I conclude my remarks with a reference to children with special needs. I am sure that this part of the Bill is welcomed by all hon. Members. However, it was significant that the Educational Institute of Scotland, in commending this part of the Bill which implements the Warnock report on the education of handicapped children and young people, said:
  "it affords an outstanding example of the determination of Governments to will the end without the means."

  1035
  I hope that the Minister will tell us what means the Government intend to will to put this into legislative effect.
  I draw his attention to the recommendation in that report that there should be a provision of a "named person" to help parents of handicapped children to deal with the vast numbers of different experts whom they see while the child is being assessed for special education. It is difficult for the parent of a handicapped child without any experience of the system to find his way through the labyrinthine corridors. A "parent's friend" should be appointed to help out. I understand that that recommendation is supported by most of the organisations involved in the welfare of handicapped children.
  A good opportunity for legislation on vocational training has been lost. The Bill provides an ideal opportunity for the Scottish Office and the Secretary of State to invoke the new Special Standing Committee system. Members who were fortunate, or unfortunate, enough to be members of the Committee could then interrogate experts on the practicality of the Bill and of the means which the Government are willing. The Committee could take a balanced opinion. I am sure that after hearing the evidence such a Committee would decide that the Bill was a fraudulent prospectus.
  7.1 pm
  Mr. Ian Lang: It is clear that the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) will have nothing to do with Centre parties. He is obviously taking a massive lurch to the Left. He is stepping from the crumbling ruins of his existing party to the smouldering ruins of the Labour Party.
  I am astonished that Opposition Members find it so difficult to say anything good about the Bill. The Bill deserves a broad welcome. It is full of highly commendable provisions. It must be difficult to be an Opposition Member and to treat a Bill in that way when it so clearly responds to the needs of Scottish education and the aspirations of Scottish parents. It is essentially a benign and relevant measure. It will improve the nature and quality of Scottish education in the years ahead. I can only assume that Opposition Members fell back on their naturally sour reflexes when responding to the Bill.
  I congratulate my right hon. Friend not only on the Bill, but on the intense and detailed preparatory studies, and the publication of discussion papers ahead of drafting the legislation. Of course, opinions might differ on points of detail and minor changes might be sought in Committee. However, the structure is sound and the intentions commendable.
  I accord a particularly warm welcome to the parents' charter in clauses 1 and 2. I cannot emphasise too strongly the duty of parents to take responsibility for the education of their own children. Anything that helps to bring parents to a closer involvement and interest is helpful.
  As the 1962 Act points out, the duty to provide efficient education for every child of school age
  "suitable to his age, ability or aptitude"
  rests on the parents of the child. Local authorities, which have too easily arrogated to themselves the right to dictate to parents on educational matters and based their approach on the belief that parents did not know enough to recognise what was in the best interests of their children, did those children and the cause of education a grave disservice.
  1036
  I look forward to the closer involvement of parents that will result from the Bill because of the greater freedom of choice, the appeals procedure and the need for local authorities to respond to it. This can lead in the long run only to better education standards and a better rapport between schools and parents, as well as a more relevant and responsive approach to the education process in our schools to fulfill the needs and bring out the talents of pupils.
  I turn to a problem in my constituency in the context of increased parental choice. I refer to the secondary schools in Kirkcudbright, Castle Douglas and Dalbeattie with which my hon. Friend the Minister is familiar because he has been conscientious in his attention to correspondence on the matter. In the past, Castle Douglas and Dalbeattie high schools were fourth-year schools, from which pupils went on to complete their education at Kirkcudbright, a few miles away.
  In 1977 the Dumfries and Galloway regional council decided to upgrade Castle Douglas from a fourth-year to a fifth-year school. That was achieved in 1979, with extremely satisfactory results in terms of examination results and increased morale. However, in Dalbeattie there remains a problem because it is still a fourth-year school.
  Upgraded schools obviously allow for the easier implementation of the recommendations in the Munn and Dunning reports. In spite of churlish remarks of Labour Members about those reports, I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the decision to implement their recommendations. That is yet another constructive initiative in Scottish education by the Government.
  Dalbeattie, with 360 pupils and still a fourth-year school, is in the largest town in the Stewartry of Kirkcudbrightshire. The town is still growing, but the school has a falling roll. Although it has the smallest percentage fall in the number of pupils in the constituency, the school roll is falling faster. It is the only school in the immediate area without all-through secondary education. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Monro) has a similar concern with the school at Langholm.
  The strong, social and educational case for upgrading a school of that nature is clear. There are transport problems caused by the longer day away from home when pupils have to be transported further away. There is the loss of extra-curricular activities which results when the pupils have to come home, with a corresponding effect on morale. There is the decline in the morale and career prospects of the staff. Great expense is involved if parents decide to take away their child before the fourth year to transfer to Kirkcudbright to provide a smoother education in the later years, but that is what is happening.
  In 1976, 10 pupils transferred in the second and third years to Kirkcudbright. In 1977, 14 pupils transferred, and in 1978, 20 transferred. Last year, in addition to several from the second and third year, 10 were transferred from the primary department, bypassing Dalbeattie high school altogether.
  Dalbeattie high school has a fine reputation. It has a good staff, who have a genuine concern for the pupils in their care and for the well-being of the school and the town. However, unless the school is upgraded from a fourth-year to a fifth-year school, they will fight a losing battle. Upgrading would cost about £300,000. That is a large sum.
  Mr. Craigen: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is not this a Second Reading debate and not an Adjournment debate?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): Traditionally, we can have a wide discussion on Second Reading.
  Mr. Lang: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  The sum of £300,000 is high even in an education budget of £30 million. Consideration has been given to building temporary classrooms at a lower cost of about £50,000. I have corresponded with the Minister about that. I understand the block allocation method of financing capital expenditure and that discretion and responsibility properly remain with the local education authority, but the increased emphasis on parental choice, which I warmly welcome, intensifies the problems of schools such as Dalbeattie.
  Competition is healthy. It raises standards. Equality of opportunity is also highly desirable. We are opening up the desirable new perspective of parental choice. Is there not a corresponding duty to help competing schools to get on an equal footing? Perhaps consideration can be given at the Scottish Office to a form of special allocation or special direction to the Dumfries and Galloway regional council, and to other councils, because achieving the future viability of education in such schools has an importance that is out of all proportion to the costs.
  Clause 6 deals with the withdrawal of the Secretary of State's powers over school closures. I greet that with mixed feelings. I should have been reluctant to see the powers forfeited, because they are a useful long-stop against a doctrinaire local authority. However, having seen them fail to save Gatehouse secondary school in my constituency—a closure that was not justified on educational, social or financial grounds and that took place in the face of the near unanimous opposition of parents, pupils, teachers and others in the area—one realises that the powers have been operable within such narrow constraints as to be of little value.
  I acknowledge my right hon. Friend's reluctance to intervene in the affairs of local government and to have a proper regard for devolution. As the powers do not seem to be effective and allow closures of schools of that nature, it would probably be better to withdraw them altogether, as the Bill proposes, than to maintain a lingering cloud of doubt about where the responsibility lies. Once the powers are withdrawn, responsibility will be seen clearly to lie with the local authorities, which will not in future be able to shelter behind the Secretary of State to avoid the consequences of their decisions.
  I accept that the local authorities' task is not easy. They are subject to pressure from two directions. On the one hand, they have pressures of operating within the financially sound and responsible constraints set by the Government and, on the other hand, they have pressure from falling school rolls. In those circumstances some schools must inevitably close, but I am anxious that that should be the last resort. I am not always convinced that that has been the case. Educational expenditure has risen enormously in the past 20 years. Since we came to office, it has increased in real terms per pupil this year and last. One must ask why schools are now closing. One cannot
  1038
  help but wonder whether too much is spent on non-essential and administrative back-up instead of in the front line, in the classroom, where educational expenditure should take place.
  Mr. Maxton: I have heard the argument about more money per head time and again from Conservative Members. Of course, in a sense, it is true, but if there are fewer children in primary schools, where expenditure per head is inevitably lower, and more children at the top of a secondary school, where expenditure is inevitably higher, the average per head will come out higher. Those are the statistical facts that the hon. Gentleman should get straight instead of perpetuating myths and rumours.
  Mr. Lang: I am glad that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) agrees that what I have said is true and that he accepts the analysis that I made earlier. The matter is one of priorities. I am anxious to ensure that the closure of rural schools is a policy of last resort and not a policy of first resort. There are three primary schools in my constituency that are rumoured to be in danger of closure.
  I shall not bore the House, as it is unwilling to take an interest in my constituency's serious problems. I shall not impose the problems further. Suffice it to say that I am in touch with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary on the matter, about which I am greatly concerned. I want to be sure that the closures do not take place for doctrinal reasons, for the belief that big is beautiful or that education is more easily administered in large units. A school is the linchpin of a rural community. It can mean the difference between the survival of the community, with young families staying and sending their children to the school, and decline and depopulation.
  When we were in Opposition we made strong statements in support of the need to maintain rural schools. I have repeated those, and I am sure that many of my hon. Friends have, as a candidate and since we took office. I know that my right hon. Friend's heart is in the right place, but I hope that his Department will continue to keep a close watch on developments and bring whatever influence he can to bear on local authorities and fight hard to save the small rural schools, which are so important to the well-being of country areas.
  I do not wish to detain the House, but I should like to mention the assisted places scheme, which I regard as an extension of the parent's charter. Philosophically it is impeccable. It introduces freedom of choice, strengthens the variety of education, increases the provision of specialist education and absorbs a tiny proportion—about · per cent.—of the total education budget in the area of independent schools, where about 3· per cent, of pupils are educated. Thus, it relieves pressure on the State system, but it will bring about the better application of funds than the direct grant system that it replaces. Twice as many schools will be involved and there will be a commendable widening of opportunity, with the finance going to the child in need rather than to the school.
  The scheme is criticised as being selective. Certainly it is, because it excludes well-off parents earning over £9,000 per annum. I welcome that and the fact that there is no creaming off to the detriment of State schools. Selection is on a broader base than academic ability. It should be emphasised to critics such as the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton), who claims that the

  1039
  scheme is a slight on the State educational system, that the choice is made not by the Government but by parents. It is they who choose to apply for places, who decide that their children's needs are best served in that way and who make massive sacrifices over many years, not just during the education period, to give the child the education that they consider best for it.
  One of the criteria of the Secretary of State's task in selecting schools to join the scheme is to find the best geographical spread. I suggest to my right hon. Friend that that is a factor that prevents the scheme from having an even-handed advantage to children from all parts of the country. I should like to ask my right hon. Friend to consider the possibility of introducing some sort of distance factor loading or increased income exemption for parents living some distance from a school. With the present financial limits, my constituents live so far from the majority of schools that boarding, which many cannot afford, would be essential. If I have a criticism of the scheme, it is that it is too restricted and too limited. The principle of assisted places can be boldly and clearly justified and such unfairnesses as exist can be removed by extending and broadening the scheme.
  Labour Members always become schizophrenic about independent schools. Half of them went to such schools or came to the House on an assisted place from some trade union. Now they want to kick away the ladder of opportunity. The confused state of mind that that can engender is well illustrated in an article that I tore from The Sunday Times some while ago, when a certain Mr. Peter Jay was interviewed shortly after taking up an assisted place at our Washington Embassy.
  It is a revealing interview:
  "Q. Do you consider yourself a Socialist?
  A. Yes."
  The hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) listens to me as though he were a public meeting.
  "Q. Why then do you send your children to public school?
  A. I send one of my children to a fee-paying school because it's the best school for her."
  That is a perfect example of the exercise of parental choice in the interests of the child.
  "Q. Which arises from an immediate concern for the family rather than a long-term concern for society?
  A. I remember reaching this conclusion when I was 17, and it's always seemed to me to be logically correct, though there have been times when, out of my concern for my reputation with people who don't see it the same way, I might have bowed briefly to misconceived, though sincere, pressure."
  Hon. Members will recall that Mr. Jay was a Wykehamist, whose motto is "Manners Maketh Man". I should add that some of my best friends are Wykehamists. The answer continues:
  "Basically, it's like this. In the conduct of your life, some of the questions you face are about what kind of society you want to live in. They're political questions demanding collective actions, and you should vote or work politically for what you believe to be the right answers. But you also have responsibilities to your family and to the people you work with, and they have to be answered on a different time scale."
  Here we come to the central philosophical thrust of the argument:
  "If we live in a jungle it's no good refusing to let your children wear boots on the grounds that you believe it would be better if they lived in a carpeted hotel.
  The decision you make must be related to the circumstances that are relevant to that decision, and it's not a question of rights, it's a duty—in some ways a disagreeable and expensive one—to make the right decision on behalf of the person you're responsible for, not to make the decision you would make if you lived in a different world."
  1040
  I suggest that that is the purest example of Socialist intellectual self-deception and twaddle that I have ever come across. It is humbug of a kind that typifies the Socialist approach to such matters, indeed to all matters of education. On the whole, the Bill is sensible and relevant to the needs of Scottish education. It deserves a smooth passage to the statute book, and I wish it well.
  7.20 pm
  Mr. George Foulkes: I imagine that after that performance the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Lang) will be applying for an Arts Council grant rather than an educational grant. I am genuinely sorry that I was unable to be here for the Secretary of State's speech. A group of pupils from my constituency was visiting the House and I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman agrees that it is important to talk to pupils and to find out what they think of the education system.
  I am particularly sorry to have missed the right hon. Gentleman's speech, because he is my Member and he will know that, like the rest of my hon. Friends who are in the Chamber, I send my children to local authority schools. That shows that we have faith in the system that we are discussing, unlike Conservative Members who have no confidence in the system on which they presume to legislate. That reveals a lot about those hon. Members.
  Mr. Canavan: My hon. Friend said that he was a constituent of the Secretary of State. May I complete the triangle by pointing out that the Secretary of State is my constituent? I sat through the whole of his speech and I can assure my hon. Friend that he did not miss anything.
  Mr. Foulkes: Whereas I send my children to schools in the Secretary of State's constituency, I doubt whether he sends his children to schools in my hon. Friend's constituency.
  Mr. Ancram: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us what school he went to and, more important, which catchment zone his children came under when he lived in my constituency?
  Mr. Foulkes: My children have always gone to the school in the catchment area in which I lived, whether it be Fiennes or Ayr grammar school. I am talking about parental choice and my making the decisions for my children. I will not be diverted by the catcalls of Conservative Members.
  Mr. David Myles: The hon. Gentleman has not replied to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Ancram). Is he ashamed that he went to Keith grammar school?
  Mr. Foulkes: I am not ashamed that I went to a school in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, but that is irrelevant to the matter before us.
  There are normally great expectations among the unions, local authorities and other bodies concerned with education when an education Bill is published. But this Bill was greeted with dismay and anger—
  Mr. Peter Fraser: By the Labour Party.
  Mr. Foulkes: No, by everybody in education. The Under-Secretary will have received letters from the Educational Institute of Scotland, the Scottish Secondary Teachers' Association and every other organisation concerned with education. None supports the Bill. Apart

  1041
  from the special education provision, which I welcome, and the technical changes in the negotiating machinery, the Bill is irrelevant to the major problems in education in Scotland.
  There is another reason why we should not have the Bill before us. I say, more in sorrow than anything else, that the Bill, which undermines the comprehensive system in Scotland and perpetuates and extends privilege in education, has been presented because of the campaign carried out by some hon. Members, including my hon. Friends the Members for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook), Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) and, particularly, my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham).
  Education in Scotland should be being considered by an elected Scottish Assembly. That was the will of Parliament and of the people of Scotland. It would have been a Labour Assembly and we should have had a better Bill which was relevant and tackled the major problems in education. Instead of that, we have a Bill which will be carried through by a majority of English Tory Members who are nowhere near the House at present but will come in from their clubs at 10 o'clock to push the Bill through.
  Most of the Bill is the brain child—I use the word "brain" as loosely as possible—of the Under-Secretaries of State, the hon. Members for Edinburgh, North (Mr. Fletcher) and Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind).
  The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): Who me?
  Mr. Foulkes: The Bill is born out of the prejudices of and promises to the Edinburgh bourgeoisie.
  Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman was one of them.
  Mr. Foulkes: The other Edinburgh bourgeoisie. The Bill has no relevance to the major problems in education, including the education of the 16-to-19 age group, the relationship between education and training and a comprehensive system of further education, all of which were dealt with by my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan). It has no relevance to the problem of indiscipline in schools. We have heard about Munn and Dunning, but what about the Pack report? That has been consigned to the shelves. Dust is settling on it. It has been sent packing.
  Nothing is being done about the major problems in education. Instead, we are presented with the product of the discussions on the so-called parents' charter—a phoney charter, a prigs' charter if ever I saw one. It is a charter for the rich to opt out, either to private schools or to a new form of selective State school, with selection based on criteria that are even more suspect than the discredited 11-plus and the qualifying examination.
  When I asked the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Ancram) what would be the criteria for choice, he could not answer the question, and I doubt whether the Under-Secretary will be able to answer it. They do not know what the criteria will be.
  Mr. Robert Hughes: We know.
  Mr. Foulkes: Indeed. We know exactly what the criteria will be.
  Conservative Members have asked whether we are against choice. The Labour Party is not against choice in
  1042
  education. We are greatly in favour of it. We are in favour of choice within a school and choice from a wide curriculum. However, the choice of curriculum is being narrowed because of the Government's public expenditure cuts. Some schools are finding it increasingly difficult to maintain a whole range of education.
  We are in favour of choice between schools within agreed parameters, but, as the hon. Member for Galloway said so nicely and so elegantly to his hon. Friends, choice in rural areas will be severely limited by the policy of the Government and there will be wholesale school closures in many areas. There will be no question of a choice among two or three schools.
  Mr. Younger: As a former chairman of an education committee, can the hon. Gentleman tell us how education committees can be narrowing choice within schools when we are providing more money per pupil this year than ever before?
  Mr. Maxton: I explained that. The right hon. Gentleman did not listen.
  Mr. Foulkes: My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) has already dealt with one aspect of that matter. The other aspect is that per capita expenditure will, of course, increase as the number of pupils falls. But that does not mean that the range of choice is increasing. I challenge the Secretary of State to go to the schools in his constituency. He will see that secondary schools are having difficulty in maintaining courses. If he comes to my constituency, he will see that there are secondary and primary schools that are no longer able to carry out specialist instruction in music, physical education, sewing and other subjects, because of the Government's cutbacks. If the Secretary of State ever went into a school in Scotland, he would know what is happening.
  We are also in favour of pupil choice—much more radical than parent choice—and it is about time that Conservative Members realised this. We realise, particularly those of us who have some experience in local government, the problem of the education authority, as does the Scottish Education Department. It produced one of its occasional papers—we wish that it would produce them more often—on choice, compulsion and cost. I wonder whether the Secretary of State and Undersecretary have even read it. They are not reacting. I doubt that they have, because if they had they would realise the problems in education. They would realise some of the practical problems facing local authorities. One is the capacity of buildings in each year and for each course of study. That limits the number of pupils who can go into a school. That is a very important criterion.
  I was asked by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat), who is no longer with us, to deal with the question raised by an hon. Member about the representation from the Scottish Consumer Council to the effect that capacity of the building should not be included in the Bill. I am glad that it is included. I am glad that the Government have taken the advice of officials and have included it, because if there were no reference to the capacity of the building, there would be gross overcrowding in schools. That would be totally outrageous. We should have complaints about overcrowding. There would be complaints about safety in schools.

  1043
  It is totally irresponsible for a body like the Scottish Consumer Council to make this suggestion. It puts in doubt its whole submission.
  There is also the question of staff availability. One cannot transfer staff willy-nilly from one school to the other, as the hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. MacKay) knows only too well, being a former teacher, just because pupils are moving in hundreds, by the whims of the parents.
  The professionals in education talk about the need for forward planning in education—planning is something about which Conservative Members forget and the need, for example, for mobility of labour; and who is encouraging mobility of labour more than the Prime Minister? There is also the question of late entrants moving into a particular area. There being no place in the local school for late entrants, can cause great difficulties for a family moving into the area.
  Some Conservative Members and local authorities want to phase out obsolete buildings—not just 50 or 60 year-old-buildings but 70, 80, 90 and 100 year-old-buildings. This will become increasingly impossible if they pack pupils into schools using annexe after annexe, as they have had to do in Leith academy because of the sheriffs ruling.
  Another point in the report related to the importance of primary and secondary links. A lot of people have been suggesting that secondary schools should increase their links with primary schools in the catchment areas so that the transfer of pupils from primary to secondary is not a traumatic, difficult experience. A secondary school can build up links with a primary school if there are three, four or five in its catchment area and it knows most of the pupils from the primary school are transferring to the secondary school. If there is a scatter, helter-skelter throughout the city, these links cannot be built up. A secondary school cannot build up links with primary schools throughout a city.
  What is being suggested by Conservative Members would destroy the whole concept of community school. A school is not just a place where a young person goes from the age of five to the age of 16 for education between the hours of 9 am and 4 pm. A school is a whole resource for a community. Increasingly it is a place to which adults can go. Grannies can use the educational facilities alongside their grandchildren. It is a place where the communities meet. That is not possible if pupils are scattered round the city. Therefore, the concepts of primary and secondary school links and community schools would be lost if we were to accept what is being suggested by Conservative Members.
  Finally, hon. Members opposite are suggesting that parents should be able to send their children to any school that they wish. But they are also saying that no funds will be provided to transport them, so that if they choose a school the other side of the city, they will be all right if they have a car or can afford to send their children on the buses. Again the poor parents would be handicapped if we were to accept what is being suggested by hon. Members opposite.
  What motivates the Government if all the arguments put forward by the professionals are against them? The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) spoke of experience in the Lothian region. Let us look at the experience in the Lothian region, about which I know something. There have been a few protests from a few individuals in Edinburgh. The statistics show that last
  1044
  year, of 11,308 transfers, only 126 were refused places of their own choice. That means that 98.9 per cent, of the parents were satisfied. There is no disputing that statistic.
  Mr. Robert Hughes: I understand the argument which my hon. Friend is putting forward. I do not wish to prolong his speech, or anyone else's for that matter, but if there were 11,000 appeals, I wonder whether he would address his mind to the possibility of devising better machinery so that appeals would not have to be heard.
  Mr. Foulkes: I may have misled my hon. Friend. There were 11,308 transfers. In fact, there were only 391 appeals. Of those 265 were granted and 126 were refused. I hope that I have shown the very small number of pupils with whom we are dealing. We have the whole panoply of the Bill for those pupils. We have schedule 1. I shall pick two holes, although there are hundreds of holes that could be picked. Paragraph 3 of schedule 1 provides that the appeal committee
  "shall not include any person employed by the authority".
  Bus drivers, sewerage workers—a whole range of people—might be ruled out. Why should they not participate in the appeal? If there is to be an appeal, why cannot bus drivers participate?
  Paragraph 5 provides:
  "A person shall not be a member of an appeal committee"
  if he took part in a previous discussion. In a local authority most councillors will have taken part in either the committee or council discussions. One could pull holes in this whole structure. It is ridiculous that we should set up such a complicated structure for a system that is working well at the moment.
  There are a number of criteria. In the Lothian region, if parents want to send their children to another school, if there is a brother or sister already in attendance, they may do so; or if there are medical reasons; for road safety or travel reasons; or because they are single-parent families; or because the parents are employed in the police force; or because an educational course is not available in the local school. These are currently the arrangements in the Lothian region.
  Mr. Ancram: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the criteria which may be written on some piece of paper are applied uniformly in the Lothian region? I have had instances in my constituency which fitted those criteria when transfers were refused.
  Mr. Foulkes: Until the last election I sat regularly on all the committees dealing with these matters and those were the criteria. We are replacing those with no criteria, just parental choice. No one will consider these important social, medical, travel and other criteria. It will just be a question of parental choice. A mythical 200 people may apply for the 100 places and only the headmaster or some strange system that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South does not know about will make the decisions.
  Finally, the appeal will be to the sheriff. I agree with my right hon. Friend and speak from experience, having gone as a witness to the Edinburgh sheriff court, when I say that the sheriff is a totally inappropriate person to deal with these kinds of appeal. The sheriff has no knowledge of the system. More than half of our sheriffs and judges in Scotland went to private schools and have no knowledge of the public education system whatsoever. They have no framework within which to judge whether to grant or dismiss the appeal. If there is to be a second appeal, it

  1045
  should be to the Secretary of State. Even a Tory Secretary of State would be better than a sheriff. At least he would have the advice of Her Majesty's Inspectorate and be able to give some professional consideration to it.
  Even more obnoxious is the assisted places scheme. It is a strange sense of priorities to have cutbacks in every region in local authority schools when we are receiving letters from the Educational Publishers' Association saying that books are not being bought by schools, when there are cuts in school maintenance leaving buildings in a deplorable condition and when school meals are worse than workhouse meals a hundred years ago. In some of our schools the children are being given bread to eat, while those who already have cake with jam on it are being given cream on top of that.
  Most private schools in Scotland are in the East and in Edinburgh, and this scheme means that taxpayers in the West will be subsidising the privileged education of those in the East. I hope that one of the first priorities of the next Labour Government will be to end this scheme immediately, with no phasing out as there was the last time round. These schools are the breeding ground of privilege. They are where the problems we have in industry today are born.
  The Bill is a ragbag of prejudice and privilege. It is irrelevant to the major problems in education. Whether in the area of education or industry, the Government and the Secretary of State have failed lamentably. It is the young people of Scotland who will suffer, and the sooner we relieve the young people of Scotland of this Government the better.
  7.42 pm
  Mr. John MacKay: I am honorary parliamentary adviser to the Scottish Secondary Teachers' Association, and it would help that association if I were to make it clear that our views on some parts of the Bill do not coincide. The association is opposed to the assisted places scheme and to the parents' charter, but it welcomes most warmly the Warnock part of the Bill.
  I start by referring to some matters in the Bill that are important, but are not the meat of political controversy. I wish to mention briefly the Scottish certificate of examination board—clause 13. I am doubtful about the addition to that board of extra institutions. I am particularly doubtful about the addition of advisers to that board. If advisers are part of the educational directorate, and if the educational directorate wishes to appoint advisers to the board, it should appoint them as part of its number and not expect them to have separate places on the board.
  The proposed new method of charging is an improvement on the present method. It is better that authorities should be charged in direct proportion to the number of presentations. I was pleased to hear the assurance that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton), that there was no danger that authorities might pass those charges on to the pupils. I hope that authorities will not allow financial considerations to rule the number of pupils presented, because schools have an obligation of responsible presentation. Schools that present pupils who do not get double figure results in the examination board marking are being irresponsible. They are wasting the
  1046
  pupils' time by asking them to pursue courses for which they are not suited, they are wasting money by asking the examination board to do the marking, and they are also suggesting to pupils that they might be capable of doing something which the staff in the school ought to know that they are incapable of doing. While schools should exercise care about presentation, I hope that authorities will not use the Bill as a way to lever schools into cutting the number of presentations merely for economic reasons.
  I hope that my right hon. Friend will have second thoughts about removing the Secretary of State's discretion to give money to the examination board. While I cannot immediately think of a situation in which the Secretary of State might have to give money, it is conceivable that there will be a situation in which the board has a financial problem, and the power of the Secretary of State to give financial aid should be kept.
  Clause 14, which deals with the teachers' salary negotiating machinery, is important. The Scottish Secondary Teachers' Association would like to have the machinery of a standing independent commission to determine teachers salaries, not a "Clegg", but something that could look at the broad picture of teachers' salaries. I find it difficult to justify that for teachers alone in the light of all the other people who work for local authorities, but the association feels that it might help to cut down the annual wrangling and disruption that have been features of our educational service. I fear that that annual disruption owes a little to the infiltration into the teaching profession of some Left-wing people with a militant motivation.
  I welcome the coming together, in the same committee, of salaries and conditions of service. I know that some parts of the teaching profession would prefer to keep them apart, but it is not practical for those two important and interlinked aspects to be kept in separate committees. It makes sense that the committee dealing with salaries should also deal with conditions of service, and I welcome it.
  Two committees, one for FE and one for schools, are to be set up. I wonder whether there is a case for having three committees. The staff and the conditions of service in primary and secondary schools are different. I wonder whether the differences in qualifications in these two sectors do not merit two separate committees, one for primary and one for secondary. The right hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) said that at present the Secretary of State is responsible for the cost of the salary memorandum. As I understand the Bill, that will be changed and the parties will be responsible for the cost. I ask my right hon. Friend to consider whether it is fair that the cost should be put on to the shoulders of the teaching profession and of the employers.
  Perhaps the most serious aspect of the Bill occurs in the FE and school sections. Attention has been drawn to it by the SSTA, the Federation of Associations of College Lecturers which represents The Scottish Further Education Association, the Association of Lecturers in Colleges of Education in Scotland and the Association of Lecturers in Scottish Central Institutions. Having read the proposed sections 92(3) and 95(6) as set out in clause 14, I am left with the feeling that after the Secretary of State fixes the number of teachers, a majority of the committee—it is not too difficult to see that one union could dominate both bodies—could decide to add one of its own members to the teachers' side. Then, to keep within the numbers, it could exclude the members of another union. I hope that

  1047
  in Committee we can resolve this dilemma, if it is there. I hope, too, that my right hon. Friend, either tonight or between now and the Committee stage, will look into the distinct possibility that the minority union on the teachers' side, and the smaller unions representing sectors of the FE part, might find themselves voted off by the majority using what will be sections 92(3) and 95(6) of the 1980 Act.
  Another matter that concerns the negotiating machinery is the significant change that is being made to the chairmanship. At present the chairman of the negotiating body is independent, but in schedule 5 there is the proposition that the chairman should be drawn from the committee. I urge my right hon. Friend to reconsider that proposition. There is considerable advantage in having a neutral chairman appointed from outwith the employers and the teachers' sides. That is especially important when there is deadlock and the dispute has to go to arbitration.
  I hope that we shall not move towards a position where both sides are required to agree before the issue can go to arbitration. At present, if the chairman feels that there is deadlock and he receives a request: for arbitration from one side—this happened in 1980—he can decide to send the issue to arbitration. That is an important role that only an independent chairman can fulfil. It would be a hopeless position if the chairman were drawn from one side or the other and he had to make a decision, either for or against his own side, about going to arbitration.
  I ask my right hon. Friend to consider the change that he has made in the overturning principle. I do not disagree that at the end of the day the Government have to have the power to overturn an arbiter's decision. However, I think that the present position, in which the Secretary of State has to resolve positively in the House that the arbiter's award should be overturned, is better than the long-drawn-out and rather negative process of laying a statutory instrument on the Table. That means that there is no debate and no argument in the House unless there is a prayer to annul. It is unlikely that my right hon. Friend, or any future Secretary of State, will wish to overturn an arbiter's decision, but it is better that the Secretary of State does so positively, rather than go about it in a negative manner.
  I fear that clauses 3 and 4 on special education needs have not received the attention that they merit. It is especially important in this year of the handicapped that we should be introducing these proposals, which are a direct result of Mrs. Warnock's report. Last week the parallel English and Welsh Bill was given its Second Reading, and I shall refer to some parts of that measure.
  I welcome my right hon. Friend's decision to make an alteration in the appeals procedure as outlined in the White Paper. I know that he received a number of representations, including my own. I am delighted that he has moved from the position that meant that the appeals committees set up by local authorities to deal with matters such as the parents' charter were to decide whether a child should be recorded. A change has been made, and if a parent is aggrieved about a decision to record-he will have a right of appeal to the Secretary of State.
  That is important, because the grounds on which such an appeal will be based will be medical or psychological. I do not think that those grounds could be judged by the sort of appeals committees that we were considering. Their composition would not have been sufficient to allow their members to make a judgment on medical and psychological issues.
  1048
  The House will know that the education difficulties of the handicapped child are as many as there are handicapped children. The proposals in the Bill recognise that fact. No longer will children be categorised, and we shall have a record of their education needs, rather than a note of their handicap. There are many divisions of handicapped children in our schools. It is difficult to make any contribution that will cover the various areas of difficulty. There are many children whose problem is mental. They are not handicapped to the extent of physically handicapped children, in that their problems are not so obvious, but those problems are just as real when it comes to education in primary or secondary schools.
  At present the children who do not quite merit being sent to a special school on mental grounds and who go to an ordinary school are all too often not treated as they should be in that school. When the Bill becomes an Act, as I know it will, I hope that the Education Department will take every possible step to ensure that the schools in our system are coping properly with the children that they are already receiving who are mentally handicapped.
  There are children who go to secondary schools who have not passed the level of primary 4 or 5. It is appalling that some secondary schools have jumped on the egalitarian nonsense that the Labour Party so often spouts in education debates. We have moved from mixed ability classes and common courses and put children into the normal stream who are incapable of coping. We have ignored the fact that in reality they have not done the work of primary 6 and 7. That does not happen in every school. Many schools have a remedial department, but that remedial department sometimes has to be fought for against the desire that children should go into mixed ability classes.
  Mr. O'Neill: If the hon. Gentleman is so well briefed by the SSTA and all the other teaching unions, will he give us some examples to justify the arguments that he is advancing?
  Mr. MacKay: I have personal knowledge. At the school in which I taught there was the problem of how many children could be put in the remedial department. There was pressure to keep as many children as possible in the mixed ability classes. The reduction of the role of the remedial department continued while mixed ability classes were considered to be the in thing. On many occasions I had considerable difficulty in trying to explain to a parent whose child had been given remedial help in primary school that he or she could not be sent to the remedial department of my school. Children in that position had to be pulled through the horror of trying to do mathematics in the mixed ability first year. I had to explain to the parents that I was sorry, but that the system worked in that way. It is a sad reflection on those responsible that we should let that happen within Scottish education.
  It was fairly common that in S3 and S4 the remedial child would be put back in the main stream because the remedial department catered only for S1 and S2. I know that there are some authorities that try hard to avoid that happening, but this is one of the areas in which Scottish education has to try much harder. There are many children who go to secondary schools whose mental handicap and limited ability are not being properly catered for during their school career.

  1049
  I turn to the group with which Mrs. Warnock's report is more concerned—children with both mental and physical handicaps. They are much more difficult to deal with, for a variety of reasons. There has been a misunderstanding of the Warnock report—namely, that Mrs. Warnock considers that such children should go to an ordinary school and be integrated in the classes of that school. It is an attempt to allow as many children to do that as possible, but it is a misunderstanding that they should all be integrated into ordinary schools. It would be a great pity if we were to go down that road. There are many good special schools that do a splendid job. It would be a great pity if they were closed and the children were moved to adjacent primary or secondary schools.
  I have listened to many remarks about resources. One would think that no money was being spent on the handicapped. In my constituency, Strathclyde regional council has done some sterling work, and in Oban there is an extremely good school that caters for the handicapped. I find it hard to believe that putting handicapped children into ordinary schools would be advantageous compared with their current education provision, which is very good in every way.
  I am not happy about the use of the word "record". The child will be given a record. The corresponding Bill for England does not use the word "record". The Undersecretary of State for Education and Science, my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson) said on 2 February:
  "Having a record is rather like helping the police with their inquiries. People who have a record are not necessarily the most famous old boys of a school."—[Official Report, 2 February 1981; Vol. 998, c. 96.]
  It is a word with connotations, which we would do best to do without. I suggest to my hon. Friend that he should consider the English terminology, which uses the word "assessment".
  In an article in The Times Educational Supplement on 5 December, Mrs. Warnock welcomed what was being done in these matters. I have no doubt that what she said will be contested by Opposition Members. She said:
  "Reactions have been amazingly predictable. Everyone complains that there will be no more money. Local authorities complain that there will be no monitoring quango for them to have seats on, teachers complain because their work will be harder, but no better paid. I find the general pessimism sad, and the outcome probably wasteful. The proposition that nothing is possible without the allocation of extra resources will render itself true. People will come to believe that nothing can be done on the grounds that not everything can be done."
  However, Mrs. Warnock and others who have written about this matter welcome what is proposed.
  I shall deal briefly with the assisted places and parents' charter schemes. It is only fair that I should say in this regard that I am not speaking on behalf of the SSTA.
  I am fortunate. I stay in an area that has a good school. I am happy that my children go to it. However, if I lived in some other parts of Scotland, I should not take that view. It is interesting that when he stayed in Edinburgh the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Foulkes) did not purchase a house in the catchment area of some of the lesser well-known and poorer schools in Edinburgh. Instead he made sure—perhaps by accident, perhaps by design—that he lived in the catchment area of a good school. That is one of the unfortunate options for parents in the city and urban areas of Scotland. If they are in a
  1050
  catchment area of a school that they do not like, they move house. Everyone knows that. We see it from the advertisements in the papers. The factor in the proposals about parental choice should help to remove that.
  The hon. Member for South Ayrshire could not decide whether to boast about the number of transfers allowed by Lothian region or to condemn anyone who wanted to move out of the zone. He talked about the demand for community schools, how essential they were and how everyone should go to them, but two or three minutes later he was boasting about the number of transfers.
  Mr. Foulkes: I was not boasting about the number of transfers. Few of the 11,000 asked for a transfer, but of that number a high proportion were satisfied. If the hon. Member cannot understand that, he should be elsewhere.
  Mr. MacKay: I understand that perfectly. Does the hon. Member approve of those transfers? If he accepts them and thinks that they are good, why does he oppose the Government's proposition to give parents the right—
  Mr. Foulkes: Because it is unnecessary.
  Mr. MacKay: I accept that the hon. Member is opposing it because it is unnecessary. I hope that my hon. Friend is listening to that. We look forward to the Opposition's not being obstructive to the clause in Committee because they agree with parental choice. They just do not think that it is necessary to have a Bill about it. That is interesting news.
  Mr. Millan: That is not an odd view. Amongst other things, it happens to be the view of the SSTA, on whose behalf the hon. Gentleman purports to speak.
  Mr. McKay: The right hon. Member is being unfair. I was not speaking on its behalf. Parental choice is an excellent thing, and I am glad that the Opposition approve of it. I am glad to hear that some hon. Members believe that my hon. Friend has made a legal definition that is too narrow. I am also concerned about that.
  I now turn to the assisted places scheme. I wish to make two points of particular interest, not just to my constituency, but to many rural areas in Scotland. Some children can go to a local school whose parents would like to send them to an assisted places scheme, but cannot afford the boarding fees. I understand the Government's reluctance to move in that direction.
  I wish to consider those children who will have to go away from home and board in a hostel at a local authority school. There are many such cases. I have heard of one in particular on one of the islands in my constituency. There is an overlaying problem in that the parent involved would prefer his child to have a Catholic secondary education—something of which I imagine the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) would approve. If his child goes to the local authority school and lives in hostel accomodation, he will not get that Catholic education because the school will be non-denominational.
  My constituent will be eligible for the assisted places scheme, but, because that is so, he will not be able to afford the boarding fees. In any case, the boarding fees will have to be paid by Strathclyde region. In those circumstances, there is a case for considering that the boarding fees should be paid, even if the child goes outwith the State sector and comes within the assisted places scheme. That is important. Although the hostel

  1051
  accommodation is splendid, some parents would feel happier about their children being in a boarding school when they have to go away from home than if they were in hostel accommodation with a separate day school.
  I welcome the assisted places scheme, but I should like my hon. Friend to consider those parents whose children will have to go away from home, who could go to a private school and who could qualify for the assisted places scheme, but would find it impossible to take it up as the boarding fees are too expensive. I understand from what my right hon. Friend said that legal provision would be made if the parent decided to appeal to the sheriff. That is important.
  I should like to make a brief point about the publication of information about a school to parents. At the moment, many schools are proud of their activities. They publish documents telling parents what they do—sports, orchestras, foreign trips, drama and so on. However, they never publish examination results. I do not understand why examination results are not just as important as those other activities. [Interruption.] I heard the word "Freedom of information". The publication of those results is important to parents, and also for the school. The recent ILEA inspectors' report made it clear that too many schools did not take into account their examination results when they considered their performance, what improvements they should make, their staffing and curriculum standards and so on. More schools could publish that information. They would be helped to do that if the parents knew about the results of the school. It is not true that parents do not know what is going on. They hear about it by rumour, which is not always true.
  I should have been happy, during the years when I presented for examination O-grades, highers and certificates of sixth year studies for mathematics, to have the results published. My department would have been equally happy to see its results published. We were reasonably proud of them and thought that we did a reasonable job. I cannot understand why the teaching profession should be so opposed to parents finding out what the school does in relation to this important sphere of activity—O-grades and highers.
  I am disappointed that my hon. Friend has not seen fit to do anything about the schools councils. A report about them by Glasgow university concluded that no meaningful role was given to them and that they would die. The Taylor report in England was welcomed by the then Secretary of State for Education, Mrs. Shirley Williams—if I dare mention her name without upsetting the Opposition. We should consider that report and the Glasgow university report. That way, we may round off the unifying concept of the Bill, which is to bring parents more into education, to give them choice of school for their children, to give those of limited means the choice of sending their children to private schools and to give the parents of handicapped children a choice. Choice runs throughout the Bill.
  I should have been happier had we looked for a more meaningful role for parents on school councils. Nevertheless, I welcome the Bill. It gives parents an increased role. They are important. Every teacher that I know wants parents to take an interest in their children's education. When they decide that they would prefer their child to go to a different school, we cannot say "Stop there". We must accept that they may make choices that
  1052
  are unpleasant for the bureaucrats and for the Labour Party. Parents are responsible for their children. It is important to give back to them some of that responsibility.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. As a non-Scot, may I say that the debate has been enjoyable, but speeches lasting half an hour deny other hon. Members the opportunity to speak. Five other hon. Members have indicated their wish to take part in the debate. If speeches are limited to 10 minutes, they will all have a chance to speak.
  Mr. Harry Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Scotland has only a small number of Tory Members of Parliament, but they seem to believe that their speeches should take half an hour, but Labour Members seem to be restricted to making 10-minute speeches.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I did not wish to condemn the hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. MacKay) in my previous remarks. Hon. Members on the Opposition Benches have also made speeches that have taken a fair amount of time.
  Mr. Henderson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Throughout most of the debate there have been as many hon. Members on the Government Benches as on the Opposition Benches.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I said that it had been an enjoyable debate. Let us keep it that way.
  8.12 pm
  Mr. Ernie Ross: I shall try to be brief. I am pleased that the hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. MacKay) is concerned about disadvantage. I shall give him other examples of disadvantage that the Bill does not deal with. I hope that he will join us tonight in voting against the Bill.
  The legislation is an attempt by the Government to claim that they are doing something for Scottish education. Throughout Scotland there is a firm belief that the Government's education policies are destroying it. I have no doubt that the Under-Secretary of State responsible for education in Scotland believes that he is opening up a new era of educational opportunity and advance. However, it is a cosmetic measure that does nothing to tap the deep-rooted inequalities in Scottish education.
  The inequalities should be highlighted so that we can see how superficial and irrelevant the measure is. Parents' rights in education go far beyond the mere selection of the school that their children should attend. Educational opportunity and success are firmly dependent on home background and the economic circumstances of the family. The right to work, to decent housing and to decent health provision all affect educational performance. They are not catered for in the Bill. The Minister is mistaken if he believes that the legislation will thaw any educational barriers. Scotland is deeply divided by class distinctions. That is borne out by educational research. Merely to tinker with the educational system will not break down the distinctions. Only a full-blooded, radical attack on the disadvantages and inequalities across the whole spectrum of the social services will do that.
  I shall attempt to summarise recent important research surveys in Scotland on educational performance and social class. The Maxwell report inquired into the reading ability of Scottish children between the ages of eight and 15. At primary 4 level, neighbourhood conditions explained 44 per cent. of the differences in results between schools. By

  1053
  primary 7 level, 68 per cent. of the differences in reading ability could be accounted for by factors such as unemployment and neighbourhood social conditions. Does the Minister seriously believe that transferring a child from an economically deprived background, in an area of educational disadvantage, to a school with primarily a middle-class intake will immeasurably improve his educational performance? The answer must be that it will not. The major findings of educational research over the past 15 years demonstrate clearly that it is the factors associated with the home and the environment and not those associated with school that determine educational success.
  I go further. The sociology department of Aberdeen university four years ago undertook a Scottish mobility study, which examined the educational performance of about 4,000 male Scots over the past 60 years. Over 50 per cent. of the sons of upper middle-class families gained highers compared with only 5 per cent. of those from an unskilled working-class background. Four out of five manual workers' sons left school at the minimum age. Fewer sons of manual workers are staying on at school now than in the 1920s and 1930s. There is virtually no difference between the proportion of highers awarded to the sons of manual workers now and those awarded in the 1920s. It is little wonder that the study concluded:
  "the outcome of educational reform in Scotland has been to give further advantage to the sons of non-manual workers, and there is little evidence that the sons of manual workers are in any way catching up."
  Will the legislation do anything to tackle that inequality? The answer is again "No".
  I go even further. Recent research by the centre for educational sociology at Edinburgh university estimated the level of superiority of middle-class children's chances of reaching certain levels of educational success in Scotland. For any Scottish Certificate of Education exam pass the ratio is almost 3:1, in favour of middle-class children over working-class children. For gaining at least three highers it is 3:1, and for gaining entry to university it is 6:1.
  I realise that the mention of the word "class" in the context of Scotland deeply offends hon. Members on the Government Benches and Members of the SNP such as the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson), who, unfortunately, is not in the Chamber. He believes that the only class difference in Scotland is that which exists in railway carriages. Class differences do exist in Scotland. This parents' charter, or whatever fanciful name the Minister proposes to give the measure, does nothing to tackle the root causes of inequality in Scottish education. That is why I hope that the hon. Member for Argyll will join us in the Lobby tonight.
  The assisted places scheme is a subsidy in disguise for the privileged private sector in education, which caters for only a tiny minority of pupils. It is being introduced at a time when State education is being throttled by public expenditure cuts. We can expect nothing else from this Government. However, I was astonished to read the Secretary of State's remarks to the young Tories' annual conference last November. He was quoted in The Scotsman as saying:
  "Of course our overwhelming priority is the betterment of the comprehensive system where 95 percent. or more of our children are going to be educated."
  1054
  How can he claim that when he is starving that system of funds and introducing a scheme to help the fee-paying sector of Scottish education, which the overwhelming majority of parents and teachers in Scotland regard as unjust and socially divisive? The Secretary of State is telling us that State education in Scotland is second rate, which is a slur on those who work in it and those who send their children to State schools.
  The scheme has few friends in Scotland. It is opposed by the teaching unions. Its only supporters appear to be those Tories who detest the comprehensive system and the standards that it has achieved. They have a theory—"Fee paying schools, good; comprehensives, bad." To prove their theory they are trying to poach the best pupils that the comprehensive system produces and transfer them to the private sector They would deny the remaining pupils the chance to watch the progress of the successful pupils, who would have encouraged them to work harder. That displays the Tories' love of elitism and snobbery at its worst.
  We have already seen the mentality that exists in those schools. I refer to the incident in my constituency, when Dundee high school began issuing preliminary application forms for the assisted places scheme before the Bill had been presented to Parliament. The form was one of the most detailed that I have ever seen. It stated that children should sit an entrance examination for Dundee high school. It should be for Parliament, not Dundee high school, to decide whether a child who attends the school by virtue of the assisted places scheme should sit an entrance examination.
  I wish to thank my right hon. and hon. Friends who signed my early-day motion deploring that practice. They would be pleased to know that it was the subject of a major news item on BBC's "Reporting Scotland" the same evening that we tabled the motion. The glow from the red faces within Dundee high school lit up the night sky of Dundee for some nights afterwards. The scheme is a scandalous abuse of public money. It is a slur on the comprehensive system. It is an example of the Tories' traditional contempt for the real Scottish educational system. It deserves nothing but the outright rejection of the House.
  The Secretary of State said that I should be thankful that pupils in Dundee high school who came from lower income families would benefit from his actions. I am more concerned about the comments made by Mr. Ian Mackie, the Tory leader of Tayside regional council, in The Scotsman on 6 February. The article states:
  "Councillor Mackie agreed yesterday that the region would be unable to fulfil their statutory obligations if they confined themselves to the expenditure guidelines of the Government."
  When I sought to allay the fears of my constituents by tabling a written question today, the Minister replied:
  "Councillor Mackie called on me on 3 February while he was in London to discuss a number of matters of interest to Tayside regional council."
  I made it clear in a letter to the Minister that if we discover that, because of the Government's policies, the Tayside regional council is not fulfilling its statutory obligations, I shall ask him to authorise Her Majesty's Inspectorate from the Scottish Education Department to investigate whether the council is fulfilling its statutory duties in Dundee, and demand that it does so.

  1055
  I take great pleasure in saying that I shall vote against the Bill. It does nothing for education in Scotland. If the hon. Member for Argyll is sincere, he will join with us in the vote tonight.
  8.23 pm
  Mr. Dennis Canavan: The Bill ignores the needs of the vast majority of children in Scottish schools. Parts of the Bill will do a great deal of damage to the Scottish education system—a system which appears to have been lurching from one crisis to another since the Minister at the Scottish Office with responsibility for education took office.
  I agree with the principle of parental choice, but the scheme proposed by the Government is unnecessary, bureaucratic and expensive. The Bill refers to at least £100,000 expenditure in 1981–82, increasing to an annual sum of £300,000 in subsequent years. One clause in the Bill will make it easier to close schools. The victims probably will be schools in rural areas, some of which are in areas represented by Conservative Members. The new negotiating machinery for teachers' salaries will do little, if anything, to restore the morale of the teaching profession following last year's fiasco about salaries, especially at a time when the Government are allowing only 6 per cent. for wage increases in the rate support grant to local education authorities.
  I said earlier that the Bill ignores the real needs of the vast majority of children in Scotland. The goodness or badness of an education Bill must be judged not on what it will do for parents, teachers and Ministers, but on the main criterion of what it will do for children. I shall devote most of my remarks to the effect of the Bill on two minority groups of children, and deal with the way in which the Government are treating one minority group as compared with the other.
  The first minority group is children and young people with special educational needs. They were the subject of a study by the Warnock committee. The hallmark of any educational system that proclaims itself to be humane and just is that there is equality of educational opportunity. If we are to achieve that, most help should go to the children who need it most. I am sure that most hon. Members will agree that the children studied by the Warnock committee come into that category. That committee was established as long ago as November 1973. The Secretary of State for Education and Science at that time was none other than the present Prime Minister—the same Prime Minster who is heading a Government who are doing so little to help those children. The committee reported in 1978 with more than 200 recommendations. Eventually, in this, the International Year of Disabled People, the Government have brought forward proposals to take action on some of those recommendations. But the sad truth is that most of the recommendations have been ignored. The Bill is a pathetic response to Warnock and to the crying need to give more educational priority to children and young people with special educational needs.
  Along with most hon. Members, I wish to give a general welcome to the abolition of the rigid system of categorisation of different forms of handicap, and its replacement with a new system based on an individual assessment, combined with a record for a child with special needs. There will be a general welcome for that proposal from educational circles outside the House. I accept what the hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. MacKay)
  1056
  said about nomenclature—one of the few remarks that I accepted in his speech. We should look for another word than "record". The new system appears to be based on a more child-centred approach, rather than on the old method of trying to pigeon-hole children into different categories.
  Having given a general welcome to those legislative proposals, I should add that there are several major omissions. There is a failure to insist on assessment of the child by a truly multi-disciplinary team. The role of the teacher is relegated to a mere consultative capacity, yet specific reference is made to the role of the psychologist and to that of the doctor, and to medical and psychological examinations. The teacher should be brought more into the multi-disciplinary team to assess the child. The Bill also fails to provide more opportunity for an earlier school entry age and for a later school leaving age, which would benefit many of these children and young people.
  The Government have failed to legislate for a named person who could become a contact point for the parents. Instead of being shoved from one office to another and from one specialist to another the parents would know that a "one-door" policy existed and that there was a named person to whom they could go for advice at any stage during the child's education.
  The Bill also fails to set up an advisory body to promote research and development into children's educational needs. In addition, it fails to improve staffing standards in certain types of special schools, which were formerly called junior occupational centres and which cater for severely mentally handicapped children. As recently as 1975, those institutions were not called schools.
  We should be ashamed of the fact that not until 1975 did we remove the stigma or label of "ineducable" from those children. In 1975 it was decided that henceforth those children would be called "educable", and that the institutions that catered for their education would be called "schools". We all know that, in itself, a change of labels does not necessarily mean an improvement in educational opportunity. It is sad that the former junior occupational centres are still exempt from the staffing provisions contained in the code that applies to other special schools.
  At a time when we should be training more teachers so that we can improve the educational opportunity for such children along the lines of the Melville report, it is particularly tragic that the Government should propose to reduce teacher training facilities and to close down colleges of education. The most serious point is that insufficient resources are being provided for these Warnock children. The Bill makes no provision for additional resources. The Government pay hypocritical lip service to the Warnock report and to the International Year of Disabled People when they proclaim that they are doing something that will be of tremendous advantage to such children.
  In 1979, when the Conservative Party came into office, one of the Government's first actions was to cut the education budget for Scotland, including a cut in the special education budget. The Bill does not provide a single extra penny for the education of these children. Earlier, I said that they were a minority. Only 2 per cent. of schoolchildren have pronounced, specific or complex educational needs. However, if we take into account those who at some stage in their educational life require some

  1057
  specialist or remedial education, one in five of schoolchildren, or 20 percent. of the school population are involved.
  The Government may claim that they cannot provide more resources for these children, because the educational system is in some way bankrupt, or because the Treasury is bankrupt. If they make that claim, how on earth can they find £3·5 million for an assisted places scheme? Indeed, that £3·5 million is only the initial amount. More money will probably be provided. It is most unfair to cut the amount of money being given to those most in need so that the Government can prop up private fee-paying schools that cater for fewer than 5 per cent. of the school population. That is a distorted sense of educational priorities. The Government seem to be depriving those with special educational needs while, at the same time, they are shovelling millions of pounds of public money into private, elitist, fee-paying schools, so that a tiny minority of parents can buy extra privilege—real or imaginary—by sending their children to them.
  Soon after the Conservative Party took office grant aid for fee-paying schools was increased from about £900,000 to £2·3 million. That is an increase of about 150 per cent. Grant aid has been increased by about another 50 per cent. for this financial year. As a result, it now totals about £3.5 million. The Government are not only cutting expenditure in education, they are redistributing whatever expenditure is left. Instead of redistributing it in favour of those pupils and those schools that are most in need, they are doing the opposite. They are taking money away from deprived children to give it to the privileged few. It is Robin Hood in reverse. They are robbing the poor to give to the rich. They are robbing the underprivileged to give more to the over-privileged.
  As other hon. Members have said, the effect of the assisted places scheme will be to reinforce the social divisions in Scotland. It is worth pointing out that 95 per cent. of parents appear to be perfectly happy for their children to attend local education authority schools. But the Government are implying that those schools are somehow inferior, and that the teachers who teach in them are somehow incapable of bringing the best out of the brightest children. That is to insult the teachers and the children in those schools. If there is any motivation at all behind this crazy scheme, it seems to be an attempt by the Government to reward a few Tory voters, their old school pals and the old boy network, especially in places such as Edinburgh.
  It is interesting to read the provisional list of schools participating in the assisted places scheme. There are none in my constituency, but I think that my constituents in West Stirlingshire, whether or not they voted for me in the last general election, will deeply resent the fact that, while their children have to suffer the effects of cuts in education expenditure in local education authority schools they will at the same time have to subsidise the Edinburgh bourgeoisie who imagine that private fee-paying schools in Edinburgh are somehow superior to local education authority schools.
  One has only to look at some of the products of the schools on the provisional list. One is Loretto school. That school was not grant-aided before. It was an independent school. Among its illustrious or infamous former pupils is the Solicitor-General for Scotland, whose name appears on
  1058
  the cover of the Bill as one of the principal sponsors. What does the Solicitor-General for Scotland think about his old school? I have looked this up in "Who's Who". I should not like to be accused of misquoting, so I shall read out the entry, which I presume was submitted or at least approved by the hon. and learned Gentleman himself. It reads as follows:
  "Fairbairn of Fordell, Nicholas Hardwick… Baron of Fordell; born 24 December 1933"—
  That must have been one hell of a Christmas for Mrs. Fairbairn. Here we come to the important part—
  "Educated: Loretto and Edinburgh University, educated in spite of both."
  In other words, the Solicitor-General for Scotland, a former pupil of Loretto, clearly thinks that it is a rotten school. Yet he has put his name to a Bill which will give public money to Loretto school to enable more children to suffer the severe educational disadvantage that he suffered as a result of going to that school.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Is this a personal attack?
  Mr. Douglas: No, it is too mild.
  Mr. Canavan: I must point out, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I left a note for the Solicitor-General for Scotland saying that I intended to mention this during the debate. Unfortunately, however, despite the fact that his name appears on the Bill, he has not appeared throughout the debate. It seems that if there is one thing that Loretto school does teach its pupils, it is truancy. That is another reason for not giving it any public money.
  Among the other schools, there is George Heriot's school which the Solicitor-General for Scotland's pal, the Lord Advocate, attended. There is George Watson's college, which produced the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) and the Secretary of State's messenger boy, the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Mr. Corrie), who is not present today, either. I notice that Glasgow Academy is also on the list. That was the school of the substitute messenger boy, the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. Pollock).
  Mr. Alex Pollock: Will the hon. Gentleman explain to the House the reasoning behind the decision of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) to take up his first teaching post—in history, rugby and ethics—at that school?
  Mr. Canavan: That is a question which my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) is best qualified to answer. However, in these days when the Secretary of State is chopping back on the number of teaching jobs, I would imagine that some teachers would be glad to get a job anywhere.
  If I had more time, I could say more about the educational records of some Conservative Members. Many of them however, including the Secretary of State himself, were exported to English fee-paying schools for most of their education.
  The list of these schools reminds me of a line of old school tie scroungers, queueing up with their begging bowls at the door of their Ministerial pals demanding that their old boys dish out more public money to bolster up their educational system. That system has produced many of the people who are now hell bent on destroying the Scottish educational system and are trying to reinforce the class divisions which currently exist in Scotland. This

  1059
  whole scheme is absolutely unjustifiable on educational, moral and financial grounds. I hope that all of my hon. Friends and perhaps even some Conservative Members will vote against this vicious measure.
  We would like to make it crystal clear that after the next general election, when we have a massive Labour majority in this place, one of our first priorities will be to get rid of the assisted places scheme and to abolish privilege once and for all from our educational system with the same ruthless determination as the Tories try to prop it up.
  8.41 pm
  Mr. Peter Fraser: My hon. Friend the Member for Argyll (Mr. MacKay) may have been criticised for speaking at some length, but all 30 minutes of his speech had a lot more relevance to the Bill than the last five minutes of the speech of the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan).
  The line of opposition adopted by the Labour Party is the same tired and obvious ploy which it used in respect of the other two items of major legislation which the Government have brought forward. On the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Act, they studiously ignored and underplayed the social importance to Scotland of the tenants' charter, which they knew perfectly well provided new and welcome safeguards, not for owner-occupiers but for council tenants.
  During discussions on the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act, they uncritically associated themselves with the "Stop the Bill" campaign, although again they knew perfectly well that had their own Government survived just a month of two more most of the proposals contained in it would have been enacted.
  Now that we are discussing this Bill, the parents' charter is studiously ignored. The provisions for special educational needs of some children, along the lines recommended in Warnock, are underplayed. The hon. Member for West Stirlingshire ought to have paid more attention to what Mrs. Warnock had to say about the implementation of those proposals in this Bill.
  I unhesitatingly welcome the provisions in the Bill. I hope that in Scotland it will be remembered how much in previous legislation the attempt was made to distort what was included. I hope that it will be realised that the same attempt is being made on this occasion.
  The provisions of clause 1 relating to placings in schools are not, I tend to agree, wholly required in every region in Scotland. As the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) acknowledged, my own education authority in Tayside already operates a flexible and sensible scheme for those parents who wish to have their children educated at other schools. Possibly it is not necessary for me to repeat this, but that same responsive approach has been singularly lacking in our capital city of Edinburgh.
  Labour Members frequently enjoy taking the mickey out of Conservative Members who have earned their living at the Bar. For a while, I made a very good living out of representing the interests of those tenants who found that they were reacting to a wholly unresponsive education authority.
  What surprises me most about the opposition to the Bill is resistance to the idea that education authorities should be required to supply information regarding any school under their management. At present, it seems quite acceptable and is frequently the case, even in the House, to judge and even to pillory an education authority on the
  1060
  basis of its crude expenditure on education. There might be some sense in that approach if the statistic used was expenditure per pupil. The hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Foulkes) and his hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross), who I am sorry to see has left the Chamber, have both used in the past the statistic of expenditure, not per pupil but per head of population. That seems to me absurd. Anyone who knows anything about Scotland appreciates that the proportion of schoolchildren as part of the total population varies enormously in different regions.
  This attack has been frequently used, especially against Tayside region. If we are to use those arguments and play that game, it is interesting to see what comes out of the statistics from the rate review last year. Tayside spends £348 per pupil on teaching staff. That is well above the average and far more than the £313 that Strathclyde spends per pupil on teaching staff. On non-teaching staff, Tayside spends the average while Strathclyde manages to spend nearly double. What parents want to know is how their children will get on at school.
  I do not believe that if parents in any part of Scotland were told that this education authority spends £348 per pupil on teaching staff while that spends £313 they would have any idea whether this represented excessive expenditure or a serious underspending on this vital issue. I should have thought that the more vital figure and the more vital approach would be the type of educational information that parents can understand. For example, more children leave school in Tayside with three or more highers than in any other region of Scotland. At the same time, fewer than the national average leave school with no qualification at all. Within Tayside, one has a better chance of being educated better than in any other region in Scotland.
  If it is legitimate to examine these figures on a regional or a national basis, it is surely logical and sensible to give information to parents on what happens in the region and what happens in individual schools. Opposition Members have been at pains to say that educational establishments in Scotland are opposed to the Bill. The factor that they have attempted to avoid facing is that organisations such as the Scottish Consumer Council have given a very warm welcome to a number of provisions in the Bill. The council says:
  "We see the provision of information for parents as the cornerstone of the government's commitment to a 'parents' charter, and greatly welcome key clauses in the bill requiring education authorities to publish details about their admission arrangements …"
  If the charge of elitism is made against the Government, it seems extraordinary that the whole attitude of the Opposition is that it is legitimate for the educational establishments to pass opinions but that if parents deign to intervene and to ask questions this passes out of the area of legitimate concern and becomes a matter that they should never be told about.
  The hon. Member for West Stirlingshire made the point that, because we wish to introduce an assisted places scheme, we are playing down the value and the contribution of State education. He seemed to relate that proposition, if I understood him correctly, to the belief that the provision of information might incite a movement of musical chairs from one school to another. I do not believe for a moment that that will be the effect. I accept that about 80 per cent. of parents are satisfied with the education of

  1061
  their children at a particular school, but more than 80 per cent. believe that they should at least have a choice, the right to know about the school, and be given the opportunity to move their children from it if necessary.
  In my constituency there is a high school in Arbroath, about which I have pestered and will continue to pester the Minister on the replacement of the school building. One of the problems with which we were faced was that there was so little information about the educational facilities within the admittedly inadequate building that children were beginning to drift away. Once we had collected information on that school in the form of a prospectus the movement away from it was prevented.
  I ask the Under-Secretary of State to consider the fact that from time to time children are just under the age at which they are required to be admitted to schools. If it is a matter of days or weeks, a number of education authorities try to introduce a flexibility into the arrangements, and permit the children to enter school before the required age. However, some people in educational establishments feel that they know better, and they say that in no circumstances should children be taken into school before the required age. Subject to the qualifications in clause 1(3)(b), if an education authority can admit a child to school before the required age, a greater educational opportunity will be given to that child.
  I re-echo the point that was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll on assisted places. The arguments have been discussed at length. I support my hon. Friend on the issue of boarding fees being included within the assisted places scheme where, in any event, the local education authority would have to educate the child away from home. That would be a useful extension to the scheme but, at the same time, it would not be solely for the benefit of some public schools in Edinburgh, to which Labour Members so fervently object. I hope that we shall be able to discuss that matter in Committee but that the assisted places scheme, as set out in the Bill, emerges from Committee intact.
  8.53 pm
  Mr. Jim Craigen: I do not envisage that the Bill will do very much for the coming generation of young Scots. Having listened to some of the speeches, one realises that its conception owes much to the ideological hang-up that still exists on the Government Benches in terms of promoting independent schools.
  I wish to concentrate on three aspects of the Bill. The first concerns assisted places. It is a pity that the Government have not thought it worthy to regard all young Scots as being eligible for assisted places, by strengthening community schools throughout the country and by raising the quality of these State schools. There will be a misdirection of the current educational funding.
  The Minister responsible for education in Scotland is in a unique position. He has at his disposal far more resources in terms of teaching staff than any previous Minister. In the 1960s and 1970s the main problem in the community schools was a shortage of teachers, not least in specialist subjects. I hope that the Minister will not seek to squander the tremendous asset that he has at his disposal, because the success of the schools is to be judged by more than mere SCE examination results. Youngsters spend a great deal of time in primary and secondary
  1062
  schools, and it is important that they should take away with them more than their certificates alone. Unfortunately, not enough of them take away certificates, but I am suggesting that school is more than a place in which only certification should count.
  With regard to the illusion of parental choice, there is no suggestion that extra resources will be made available to the parents. Indeed, the previous Bill, the Education (Scotland) (No. 1) Bill, deliberately sought to reduce the financial resources available to parents by savaging the ability of local authorities to deliver services. In most inner urban areas—and in quite a number of rural areas—the problem of school closures will overhang the educational situation, and not only because of the decline in the number of pupils. It seems that there will be even more difficulties in terms of planning courses, timetabling and staffing arrangements, and one visualises that a lot of Portakabins will be required for all the movement that will exist between the popular and the unpopular schools—that is, if parents have the resources to pay for their youngsters to go to the popular schools.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) referred to the appeals machinery that exists in Strathclyde where, as I was able to find, there were about 3,700 applications for exceptional transfers, of which about 3,400 were granted. There may well be a need to improve the appeals machinery, but here we have a Government who despise quangos. So what do they seek to do? They seek to have superimposed public authority non-governmental organisations. We might call them "spangos". They will be mushrooming from Gretna Green to Sullom Voe. No doubt they will require clerks and administration, and will be a very costly aspect of education.
  Reference has been made to the fact that the sheriff will be involved. I wonder how many sheriffs will have adequate knowledge of community schools, because they are, in the nature of things, drawn from a select element in the community.
  But the third and most serious omission from the Bill relates to the 16 to 19 age group. The Secretary of State said this afternoon that he did not have much to say about that group. If I may say so, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he did not have very much to say about anything this afternoon, but the absence of hope for the 16 to 19 age group is particularly galling.
  The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) drew attention to the de-motivation that exists in many of our schools. The most serious problem facing a lot of youngsters is the absence of employment opportunity when they leave school. Although more than two-fifths of them leave school with no qualifications, many youngsters who leave school with qualifications are finding it extremely difficult to obtain employment.
  It may well be that decisions will be taken later on in respect of the Munn and Dunning reports. The Scottish Office published a little leaflet entitled "The Government's Development Programme—The Munn and Dunning Reports: A Progress Report". When one examines the document in detail, one sees that it appears to be all cover and little content. When I asked the Secretary of State a question about introducing, on an experimental basis in Strathclyde region, maintenance allowances so that youngsters could stay at school after 16 without financial worries, he refused to consider the proposition. But that would seem to be a necessary step

  1063
  at a time when we know that almost one school leaver in three will require a place in the youth opportunities programme.
  I have no doubt that the Scottish Select Committee, under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes), will be able to examine this important issue of youth unemployment. But there must be a greater bridge between the secondary schools and the further education colleges. It struck me that the Secretary of State intends to draw on some of the initiatives that the last Government started, but I wish that he had spelt out in greater detail what he had in mind. Next year we shall see the beginning of a sharp drop in the number of 16-year-olds. The Government are uniquely placed. There will be a drop in the number of school leavers over the next decade, and there will be corresponding demand for places in further education colleges.
  Coming back to the point that was made earlier about provision for the disabled, I hope that the Secretary of State will bear in mind the problem that is now developing in respect of the mentally handicapped, where parents whose youngsters are reaching 16—because of medical advance they are living longer—are now worried about what happens to their children after the age of 16. Are they to stay at home, or are they to be institutionalised? I hope that the Secretary of State, in this of all years, will respond to that difficulty.
  I see the Bill as a spurious and shoddy piece of legislation which will do little for Scotland's young people today, and will certainly not prepare them for the world of tomorrow. Despite what has been said about some of the bureaucracies, the zoning and other arrangements will provoke a shambles in the administration of Scottish education over the coming years.
  9.3 pm
  Mr. Barry Henderson: Unlike the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen), I welcome the Bill as an extremely useful and practical measure. There is one matter on which there is universal agreement, and that is that the university courts of the universities of St. Andrew's, Glasgow and Aberdeen will now have the right to appoint their own principals. As one of those universities is situated in my constituency, I believe that this provision will be warmly welcomed, despite the maintenance by the Opposition, when in Government, of the Royal Prerogative of the past.
  Clauses 1 and 2, which relate to parental choice, would not be necessary if all regional councils acted like the best regional councils. It is a matter for regret that these clauses are necessary. After a number of years of pressure, Fife regional council, for example, has introduced a useful and remarkably successful measure of parental choice in primary schools. For some time I have asked it to extend the scheme more rapidly in the secondary schools. The Bill will ensure that parents have the rights to which they are entitled. Fife regional council is now beginning to realise that it is a useful measure.
  The special educational needs part of the Bill is of particular value. Opposition Members have talked about finance for particular proposals in the Bill. Nobody will disagree that the Government's measures in relation to the Warnock report are first class. The only query that the Opposition raised in that respect was about finance. My right hon. Friend said that the scheme would be financed
  1064
  primarily under the rate support grant formula, but we should not forget that Mrs. Warnock argued that a great deal could be done which did not necessarily require finance.
  I hope that my right hon. Friend will consider the possibility of stressing in the Bill the duty of an education authority to provide education for children with special needs as soon as the needs are discovered and assessed. We should not wait until such children start their school careers. That is a recommendation of the National Deaf Children's Society. The suggestion applies in particular to deaf children.
  Mr. David Myles: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, because this might be the only way in which I can make my point tonight. I wish to refer to deafness and the removal of categorisation. I am slightly worried, because deafness is invisible. Sometimes deafness is mistaken for a mental disability. Sometimes I am thought to be stupid rather than deaf. Does my hon. Friend agree that deafness should be named, in order to remove the stigma?
  Mr. Henderson: I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will have noticed that important point, which is made with knowledge and experience of that disability.
  At the risk of my reputation, I must say that I agree with the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) on one matter. I agree with his proposition that a named person should handle the cases of children with special educational needs. One of the problems of bureaucracy is knowing where to start and how to tackle it. That suggestion would not impose a serious burden on the education authorities, and would be of immense benefit.
  With all the many reorganisations and multi-million pounds that have been put into the education system in the last 20 years, it is still a cause for anxiety that the proportion of pupils leaving school without any educational qualification is disturbingly and persistently high. Anything that we can do to reduce that will be good for the children and help their employment prospects.
  9.9 pm
  Mr. Martin J. O'Neill: The debate has been wide-ranging perhaps because of the generosity of the Chair. We heard an Adjournment-type speech from the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Lang) about the problems in his area. The debate has been restricted by the Bill's content because it deals with little that is relevant to Scottish education. Because of the ingenuity of my right hon. and hon. Friends, we have been able to discuss the important issues that affect education. We regret that an issue, which should be the subject of wide concern throughout the country, will be hindered by the almost unintelligible form in which the legislation has appeared. In Committee we shall endeavour to make the Bill appear clearer and more honest to the general public.
  Much has been made of the parents' charter as a new extension of parental freedom which will, somehow, transform our education system. The message of the 1979 Tory manifesto was to the effect that by extending parental rights and responsibilities, and by giving parents a greater influence in education, there would be an improvement in the education system. From what we have heard today, the

  1065
  secret of Tory education policy seems to be to give parents more rights and somehow educational standards will improve. It is not books, money or resources, but parents' rights which will improve the education system.
  It has been argued that some local authorities have not been fulfilling their requirements or allowing the transfer of children from one school to another. My right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) and I approached four authorities in Strathclyde, Lothian, Fife and Central. We took Labour authorities because we felt that, in the Government's view, Conservative authorities would be beyond reproach. In 1980, in Strathclyde, out of 3,700 requests, 3,370 were granted and 334 refused. Lothian, the bete noir of the Tory Party in Scotland, had 391 requests of which 265 were granted and 126 were refused. In the Central region, my own region, there were 300 requests of which 226 were granted and 74 were refused. In 1980 Fife had 88 requests of which 78 were granted and 10 were refused. About 97 per cent. of all placements in the four regions were accepted without appeal.
  However, the Minister is so determined to give all parents the right of appeal to move their children that he is setting up a vast bureaucracy to provide information and to afford leave to appeal.
  Will the Minister tell us how he proposes to operate the legal aid system, which is not in the Bill? We have looked in vain through the Bill and have found no reference. It may be in the regulations. I hope that he will explain that when he replies. It came to light only today that legal aid would be provided.
  Most of the provisions concerning the parental charter are largely irrelevant as most schools now have prospectuses, which are revised annually and include details of the range of courses, the content, the choice, the school facilities, the clubs and the societies. In short, they are an attempt to encapsulate what the school offers. In most cases they tell us a great deal more about the school than we can find in the Public and Preparatory Schools Year Book or the Independent Schools Association Year Book which give details of fee-paying schools in the form of a prospectus.
  Common to both the public and the private sector is that none of the publications mentions examination results. If it is not felt necessary to make exam pass figures available in the standard directories of fee-paying schools, why should it be obligatory for local authority schools? Is it because many of the so-called better schools which give wider opportunities would be "done" under the Trade Descriptions Act if they had to come clean about the real state of their so-called academic standards?
  Notwithstanding that, will the Minister be more specific about what he will require in the way of pass rate figures? Will it be simply the number of passes or the number of passes against presentations? Will it be the numbers who get C, B or A grades at O level? Will it include those who receive certificates, but who have failed to achieve over 50 per cent. and are awarded D and E grades? Will it be the number presented against the rest of the year population? Will it encompass matters such as the CSE mode 3 courses that are offered in Lothian and other areas? Will it reflect different approaches to presentation within a school? In some departments head
  1066
  teachers will allow only those who will definitely pass to sit an exam, while others say that it is sufficient for a pupil to complete a course and submit himself to presentation.
  Those are the sort of questions to which teachers and parents are entitled to know the answers. If the regulations and guidelines are to be all-embracing, it will be an incredibly complicated system. As well as differences within schools, there are different types of schools. I choose as examples two local authority schools in the Under-Secretary's constituency—Drummond high school, a former junior secondary, and Broughton high school, an old-style high school, which has moved into a new building, opposite Fettes college, and is arguably one of the best equipped schools in Scotland.
  The Broughton school covers areas such as the new town and the middle class housing estates such as Craigleith. On the other hand, Drummond looks to the inner urban area where there are housing problems, higher unemployment and greater social problems. It is in an outdated building and is fighting for its existence, but it has a wide range of community-related activities, has specialised in work with immigrant ethnic groups and is steadily improving the academic side of its work.
  Would it be possible for the tidy-minded bookkeeper in St. Andrew's House, the education Minister, to construct a league table to cover that range of variables? The differences are impossible to quantify in the way that the Minister would like. He knows that. Even organisations such as the SSTA—I see that their paid hack is not present, perhaps he is ashamed of being unable to take his money—
  Mr. Henderson: There are many sponsored trade union members who do not have such remarks made to them. My hon. Friend the Member for Argyll (Mr. MacKay) is a member of a trade union and declared that fact when he spoke. It is no disgrace to be a member of a trade union. My hon. Friend is neither paid nor a hack.
  Mr. O'Neill: The hon. Member for Fife (Mr. Henderson) knows as much about trade unionism as he does about education. The hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. MacKay) spent his time discussing the policies of the SSTA. [Hon. Members: "Withdraw."] I will not withdraw. The hon. Gentleman gave a disgraceful peformance. He has returned to the Chamber and I am pleased to repeat that in his speech, tactfully or untactfully and in a hack-like manner, he ignored the evidence of his own union.
  Mr. John MacKay: If the hon. Gentleman had listened to my speech, he would have heard me emphasise that I am an honorary adviser. I get no payment. I would not have taken payment if the union had offered it. It did not offer payment. I get nothing from the union. If the hon. Gentleman said that I did, will he withdraw?
  Mr. O'Neill: I withdraw my reference to the hon. Gentleman. He is an unpaid hack of the trade union.
  I should like to quote the part of the SSTA briefing that was not referred to by the hon. Member for Argyll. The association stated:
  "schools often achieve good or bad reputations on the basis of no more than fad or whim or rumour. A minor matter giving rise to unfavourable publicity may commence a vicious circle which causes a school to acquire an entirely undeserved bad reputation; similarly, the accident of a particularly clever pupil's obtaining some national recognition or the avid use of the media by a publicity conscious head teacher may lead to a school's acquiring an undeserved good reputation."

  1067
  That is the view of a union which is not particularly known for its progressive views. In this instance, it has hit the nail on the head in regard to parental choice.
  Everybody is an expert on education, because everybody went to school, but we shall find that parents will seek to use the league tables to justify their actions. Instead of its being a parents' charter, it will be a moaners' manifesto and a small, snobbish minority will take their children away from schools, thus jeopardising their very existence, regardless of the quality of buildings concerned, the effect on staffing levels or the general morale of the school. That could lead to the creation of junior secondary schools—something which we thought we had seen the end of in Scotland many years ago.
  By allowing parents the right to appeal to a sheriff against the decision of a local authority, as the charter provides, we shall find legal rather than educational considerations taking priority. We shall try in Committee to have all the appeals referred to the Secretary of State. We shall at least have the opportunity to take educational considerations into account.
  The Government propose to set up a system and somehow parents will take a greater interest and standards in education will improve. Reference was made earlier by the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Foulkes) to the 11,000 pupils who were sent to Lothian schools from primary to secondary school and the 391 requests which were made for the children to go to other schools. Of the people who had appeals heard, only 126 were not satisfied; about 1 per cent. were disappointed. The Minister is trying to tell us that within this grouping of 126 parents will lie the salvation of Scottish education, that by satisfying the 126 who were not satisfied by Lothian region our education system will be transformed. The Minister knows that this is nonsense. I think that this parental charter is a sham, and simply appeals to the worst instincts of Tory voters. We shall take every opportunity to undermine it in Committee.
  On the Warnock report, it was probably in this area that the Government could have got most support from the Opposition. Unfortunately, once again they have missed the opportunity. Certainly the biggest single omission is the failure to provide the resources to cater for the expansion of special education which the report envisages. There are three areas of priority which were included in the Warnock report about which very little mention is made: provision for children under five with special educational needs; provision for young people over 16 with special needs; and teacher training.
  At a time when the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North (Mr. Fletcher) is hell-bent on closing colleges of education, here is a God-given opportunity for him to find something to do with the colleges where he regards the numbers of students as being too small. These were the three priorities above all else that the Warnock report requested. We shall not seek to approach this area in a partisan way, but we shall seek to get financial backing for the Government's resolve. We should like to see greater involvement by teachers in the preparation of reports. We should like pre-school children to be given clearer vetting and better consideration.
  We believe that as far as possible it should be the responsibility of the local authorities to provide the necessary care and we are concerned by the proposal which will give parents the right to ask that their children be sent to a grant-aided or independent school with a right
  1068
  of appeal. We want to ensure that where local authorities have these provisions available they are made the fullest use of.
  We support those Members on the Government Benches who made reference to the desirability of appointing a named person. We hope that the widespread concern about this question in the House today will persuade the Minister to look again at that. We hope that it would be a good starting point for a concession. We hope also that we can come back to the question of list D schools and the problems of children with special educational needs.
  I echo the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen) that no provision has been made for transitional arrangements for young people at 16. The problems of young people leaving care after 11 years and being thrown into the world is something which many of us believe to be of paramount importance. We think that the Minister must, in the International Year of Disabled People, find money for this particular group who probably above all are the ones most at risk at this moment.
  The area which is probably most controversial is that of the assisted places scheme. We should like the Under-secretary of State to be a little clearer in his mind than was the Secretary of State as to whether the ability of the pupils will be the criterion for acceptance into the schools in the scheme. The Tory manifesto said that grant-aided schools gave wider opportunities for bright children. That reference to bright children tends to suggest that less able children will not be included in the scheme. We give notice that, as soon as we are back in power, we shall discontinue the scheme, and this will be the first step towards the elimination of any State funding for private education either by rate relief or by privileges presently enjoyed under the so-called charitable status. We also hope at that time to end the income tax relief for parents.
  This scheme is half-baked. It rests on the premise that independent schools are somehow better than State schools. The election manifesto spoke of giving wider opportunities to bright children from modest backgrounds. If these schools are so good, there is a case for giving less able children a chance as well. The Minister should be specific on this and let us know what is happening.
  As the geographical spread of these institutions is uneven, the effect of the scheme will be felt more severely in some areas than in others. Once again, Edinburgh seems to be the target for the Government's policy. There are 14 schools in Edinburgh, 14 schools in the whole of Strathclyde, six on Tayside, one in Highland, three in Grampian, one in Central, one in Dumfries and Galloway, and one in Fife. As the size of the schools varies and the location will not necessarily be convenient for all who want to go to to them, this system is basically unfair from the start. It is a cruel deception being played on the people who were foolish enough to vote for the Government in the expectation that something like this would be created. The concentration of numbers in particular areas will have the effect of creaming off many of the more able pupils. At a time of falling school rolls, this will further exacerbate the opportunities for the children in the State system, and will prevent them from having a wider range of senior school options.
  It has been suggested that the scheme in the first year will cost about £800,000 and will rise to in excess of £5 million. When it is taken into account that aid to the

  1069
  private sector has already risen from £1 million to about £3·4 million, it is easy to understand the bitterness that this scheme arouses in the rest of the school system in Scotland. It had been suggested that the proposal is not even popular with the schools themselves, and that they would rather have the money under the old system to deal with as they wish.
  We regard this system as an affront to Scottish education and no more than an attempt to appease ill-informed parents who feel that there must be something better than the local school. My concern is for the children who go to those schools and discover that they will be second class citizens, denied the right of membership of clubs, societies, and activities for which payment must be made. The question of school uniform arises and the provisions of the proposed section 75B are all too vague. There is no great commitment to ensuring that the young people who go to these schools will get the necessary resources to play a full part in the school.
  While I appreciate that the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North, went to a local authority school, far too many of his colleagues are totally ignorant of our system because the only time they have been in Scottish schools is on polling day when they have gone to vote. It would perhaps do some hon. Members on the Government Benches good to spend some time in the State system that they spend so much time denigrating.
  To go on to look at the miscellaneous provisions, clause 14 is probably the most complicated clause, and the hon. Member for Argyll read out the provisions very fully. This must be looked at in Committee and the question of salaries and conditions must be considered in some detail, but not in the House this evening.
  The status of non-denominational school closures is an issue that has caused a great deal of concern. We should like to see equality of treatment between the two communities. We hope that the Minister will reconsider the vexed issue of closures. We are especially concerned, at a time when rolls are falling and resources are scarce, that an unscrupulous authority will take advantage of these circumstances to close schools indiscriminately. We ask the Minister to think again and to amend the clause or withdraw it so that both communities in Scotland can be treated equally.
  The Bill is at best an irrelevance and at worst a cruel deception. We recognise that there is always a need for tidying-up legislation, but there is nothing of any substance in the Bill that will give any hope to those who care about Scottish education.
  The Secretary of State is without a friend for his assisted places scheme. Professional organisations such as the Educational Institute of Scotland, the NAS/AWT, the Scottish School Teachers Association and the headmasters' Association are all against it. They regard it as a slight against their members who work in the State sector. They reject the notion that in some way local authority schools are inferior to fee-paying institutions. They resent a scheme that will mean that resources that could be used to improve the lot of the great mass of Scottish young people will be diverted to help a privileged and pampered few.
  The professional organisations find it incomprehensible that low pupil-teacher ratios should be desirable in private schools but should be regarded as not necessary in local
  1070
  authority schools. Equally despicable is the way in which the right hon. Gentleman has tried to dress up the wretched assisted places scheme as mutton dressed as lamb. The clever children of the deserving poor will be allowed to go to fee-paying schools provided that they do not live too far away and if they are prepared to put up with the ignominy of being second-class citizens who are not able to participate in activities such as music lessons, the skiing trips, the continental holidays and all the other activities that are advertised in the brochures as being a desirable part of the education that the schools can provide, when there is no likelihood of financial support being given to enable them to take part.
  Is the Minister aware of the problems that he is creating? No one wants the scheme. The schools do not want it. They would rather have the money in the form in which they used to have it, but we shall not necessarily give it to them in that way when we are in Government.
  After the next general election the financial support will go. There will be difficult conditions in State schools, and apart from the cuts in staffing and resources and the working of clauses 1 and 2, which will result in havoc being created, we shall find that the more able children will be creamed off to the fee-paying sector. The socially ambitious will be taking their children away from the more difficult schools to the lusher pastures of surburbia where the catchment areas are better. The effect on teaching morale of these measures will be disastrous. We shall be back to the worst days of the old junior secondaries.
  The detailed regulations that will ensue from the working of the parental charter—appeals to the sheriff, the complicated procedures of the law and problems with the legal profession—will create a bureaucratic warren far worse than that which now exists. There will be neither consistency nor fairness in the application of the law as envisaged in the Bill.
  In the main, local authorities have schemes that satisfy most parents. They afford reasonable means of dealing with requests for children to be moved from one school to another. The league tables by their simplicity will merely serve to confuse the issue.
  In many respects the least controversial aspect of the Bill, that dealing with special education needs, is the most disappointing. In the International Year of Disabled People it is utter hypocrisy for the Government to deny funds for the implementation of even part of the Warnock report.
  We thought that somewhere in St. Andrew's House there was someone prepared to make a stand against the Treasury, but it seems that the cowardice that has categorised the political performance of Ministers since they came to St. Andrew's House is being carried through in this area. In their treatment of the young and the disabled, the Government have been most cruel and heartless in their deception. After food and shelter, education is the greatest need of the young. The Bill, with the rest of the Government's measures, will result in no remission the despair and misery which parents in Scotland feel about their children's future. For those reasons, I have no difficulty in calling my hon. Friends to join me in the Lobby in opposing the Bill.
  9.36 pm
  The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Alexander Fletcher): I was disappointed at the reaction of the Opposition to the Bill presented by my right hon.

  1071
  Friend. It is not surprising that they oppose the Bill and that they feel strongly about certain aspects of it. However, it seems to me, from most of the speeches made by Opposition Members, that they oppose the Bill for purely doctrinal reasons, and have not attempted to read the Bill and try to understand its proposals. I accept that, in view of the Renton committee proposals, the drafting of the Bill makes it a little more difficult to read than a normal Bill. However, it is a most important piece of legislation.
  The Bill concerns many aspects of education—not simply the assisted places scheme, which, important though it is, deals with a relatively small proportion of the population. Parts of the Bill deal with Warnock and parental choice. Surely the interests and desires of parents in sending their children to school are of prime importance, not just to the parents and the children, but to the education system. No organisation and no system can prosper and survive unless the wishes of the consumers—in this case the parents and children—are taken into account, not just in the schools, by school teachers, but by those who administer education, and by education authorities.
  Mr. Robert Hughes: As a Socialist and an egalitarian, and as someone who believes that the rights of the child are paramount, I believe that the widest possible parental choice should be exercised within the State system, given that there must always be limitations of practicality and space. The Bill does not provide for progress in this area. Schemes could be produced far better than this one, with proper parental choice. This is a mouse of a Bill. For that reason, I oppose it.
  Mr. Fletcher: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will join the Committee on the Bill, because we do not pretend for a moment that we have all the answers to the improvement of parental choice. If he joins the Committee and wants to expand the opportunities for parents to be involved in their children's education, we would be delighted.
  When I listened to the hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. O'Neill), it was disappointing to hear the concentration in his speech—and in most other speeches—on the assisted places scheme. As my right hon. Friend said, there is no need to introduce the Bill simply to change the grant aid system for the assisted places scheme. My right hon. Friend already has legislation which has been on the statute book for many years which, through the introduction of regulations, enables us to transfer the grant aided scheme to the assisted places scheme. As he told the House, that is what we propose to do.
  The hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire went further than most of his colleagues when he used the expression "the deserving poor", when talking about grant aided and independent schools. He took delight in pointing out that many Conservative Members had gone not to local authority schools but to fee-paying schools.
  In the interests of fairness, I point out that a number of hon. Members on the Opposition Benches did not go to local authority schools.
  The hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) went to Ampleforth. The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) went to Eton. The hon. Members for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) and for
  1072
  Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) went to Glasgow Academy, which few of my hon. Friends could afford. The hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Foulkes), who is most reluctant to own up to his old school, went to Haberdashers' Aske school. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) is not in the Chamber. To beat it all, he went to Lord Williams' grammar school, which is very appropriate.
  Mr. Foulkes: Surely the acid test is not where we went to school but where we send our children. That shows our view on parental choice.
  Mr. Fletcher: Shall I produce that list? No. There has been enough embarrassment on the Opposition Benches this evening. I shall leave that list for now. There will be ample opportunity to use it in Committee.
  Mr. Foulkes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Fletcher: No, not again.
  I congratulate the hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire on his first appearance on the Front Bench in these debates. We wish him well. I am sorry that he, as a young family man, has so little interest in parental choice, to judge from his remarks. Is he one of the privileged people in Edinburgh who can afford to buy a house in a catchment zone to suit his requirements? That is the privileged way in which choice is exercised under the rigid catchment zone system that he and his hon. Friends warmly support.
  Mr. Douglas: That is the market.
  Mr. Fletcher: It is not the market in education. It is the market in housing. That is why we have little respect for that system.
  Mr. Douglas: It may be a distortion of the market but it is the market. If a league table was produced, we should find that house prices in the areas where the better schools are situated would rise. It is a distortion of the market produced by a distortion of education.
  Mr. Fletcher: The hon. Gentleman misunderstands the facts and the purpose of the Bill. We wish to put an end to rigid catchment zones so that people do not have to buy a house—if they can afford to do so—in the area in which they wish their children to go to school. By providing assisted places in independent schools we are taking that financial consideration out of the issue. That is why the Bill is important.
  The right hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) seemed to say that the Bill should be opposed simply because it does not help school leavers to find jobs. However, especially at a time of recession, the quality of education must continue to improve, which is what we are seeking to achieve. By introducing choice and increasing parental interest we can also improve the motivation of teachers, which is important if we are to have a sound, viable and improving educational system.
  My right hon. Friend outlined the improvements that are under way not only in this legislation but in the Munn and Dunning reports, which do not require statutory provisions. However, those reports gathered dust on the shelves under the previous Government, who had neither the wit nor the will to bring forward proposals to implement the recommendations. The Bill covers the areas where legislation is required to improve the education system.

  1073
  The right hon. Member for Craigton criticised the provision for parental choice. I do not think that he did so because he objects to parental choice. From his speech, it appeared that he had not fully considered the provisions relating either to parental choice of to the assisted places scheme. The Opposition should be concerned about the image that they present in more than one respect. They constantly represent the bureaucracy. They are forever coming to debates and talking about the need to support and help the administration of housing, education and local authorities. Yet, as the so-called people's party, the Opposition seem to have little time for the choice and aspirations of those whom they claim to represent.
  What can be more important for the so-called people's party than to take into account the considerations and aspirations of their constituents—whether on the question of having the opportunity to buy their local authority houses, or on the question of having an opportunity to make representations about the school in which their children will be educated?
  The right hon. Gentleman asked a number of specific questions. He asked about appeals to the sheriffs, and whether they had been consulted about the new procedure. Indeed, they have been consulted and they have agreed to the procedure. He was wrong to suggest that school councils were to be excluded from consideration of transfer requests. There is no reason why they should be excluded. Indeed, we shall encourage them to be involved in the early stages of a request for a transfer. Many of them are already involved.
  I turn to the relaxation of powers, and the fact that local authorities will be able, to a greater extent, to make decisions about the organisations of education in their areas. Local authorities welcome the proposals for the relaxation of controls proposed by my right hon. Friend.
  Mr. Millan: I said that the school councils in many areas, including Strathclyde, act as the appeals committees. Why cannot they continue to do so, instead of being supplanted by the provisions in the Bill?
  Mr. Fletcher: We must provide a system that will be fair throughout the country. I do not believe that any local authority, within its power to look sympathetically at parents' requests, has anything to fear from the provisions in the Bill.
  The right hon. Gentleman gave his support to the proposal to bring together teachers' pays and conditions of service. We very much welcome his support in that area.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Ancram) made clear the reasons why parental rights and choice are an important part of the Bill. He mentioned the rigid catchment zone. I know of his experience in his constituency and the number of complaints that he has received from disatisfied parents. They spring only too readily to mind. He mentioned the restriction on moving home, which I have already discussed, and the bureaucratic convenience that is supported by the Opposition party in preference to the wishes of parents and children.
  Opposition Members suggested that the assisted places scheme involved privilege, or an extension of privilege. If we were to concede that the assisted places scheme is privileged—which we do not—why in all the world should the Opposition object to privilege being applied to low
  1074
  income families? That is the total lack of logic evident in the arguments presented by almost every Opposition Member this evening.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South was worried about the need to record children before primary school age. We shall be happy to consider that in Committee. In particular, we shall be particularly happy to consider the question of deafness about which my hon. Friend, and my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, East (Mr. Henderson) are extremely concerned. My hon. Friend also mentioned the provisions for a maximum intake. It is unavoidable that some provisions should be included in the Bill. If an education authority tries to engineer an artificially low intake, parental appeals should force a remedy.
  The hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) said that we had no support for the Bill. We might not have support from the trade unions that represent teachers, but a recent opinion poll run by The Observer and the recent BBC Scotland programme, "Current Account" showed that there was considerable public support for the assisted places scheme. The hon. Gentleman drew a comparison between the provisions of the Tenants'Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Act and the Bill. I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Given all the years that the hon. Gentleman has spent in politics and the constituency that he represents, I do not know why he should be so determined to deny his constituents a choice in such an important aspect of their lives. We are trying to ensure that those of modest means will be given a new opportunity to expand their freedom of choice—whether in home owning or education—if they so wish. There is no compulsion. It is purely a matter of opening up opportunities that people may wish to take advantage of.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) emphasised the principle of reducing the amount of power held over people and of providing more choice. He asked us to ensure that no local authority would try to prevent the Bill from being effective, as some authorities have tried to frustrate tenants in their attempts to buy their local authority homes. Any Bill of this nature would require local authorities to act reasonably and responsibly. I am sure that they will do so, particularly as education authorities learn to respond to parents' wishes, and as parents learn to exercise their rights, to the benefit of classroom motivation and educational standards generally.
  Any local authority that deals sympathetically with the requests of parents has nothing to fear from the Bill. The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) mentioned public funds and the fact that between 1980–81 and 1981–82 the rate support grant will be reduced by about £20 million. Essentially, that is due to falling school rolls, which in turn will cause school closures. That should not surprise the hon. Gentleman. No valid complaint can be made against expenditure cuts. In 1981–82, expenditure per pupil in real terms will increase by £6. It cannot be considered insignificant if expenditure per pupil increases at a time when school rolls are falling. Any accusation that the Government are making slashing attacks on public expenditure is completely unjustified.
  Mr. Gordon Wilson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that when school rolls fall the cost per pupil rises regardless of the quality of education being given? As an accountant, the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that. Is it not better that

  1075
  the Government should expend that additional £20 million on improvements in the pupil-teacher ratio? In that way, the quality of education can be improved.
  Mr. Fletcher: We do not have to harp on about resources and increased expenditure to improve the quality of education. At a time of economic hardship it would be absurd to ignore falling school rolls when we prepare our budgets. The hon. Gentleman also complained that no progress had been made in dealing with the Munn and Dunning reports. The hon. Gentleman has been a little slow. Last month a progress report was issued on Munn and Dunning, and I commend it to the hon. Gentleman. We are anxious to ensure that progress is maintained in that important area..
  My hon. Friend the Member for Galloway (Mr. Lang) reminded us of the duties that parents have for the education of their children. I am glad that he did so. Local authorities, teachers and parents are in great danger of forgetting that. That goes against the principles by which Scottish education earned the respect of the world. The object of the Bill in dealing with parental choice, the assisted places scheme and special education needs, is to provide the opportunity for Scotland to recapture that respect.
  I noted my hon. Friend's special pleading about secondary education in his constituency on grounds of extra finance and school closures. While I can do little about the former, I am glad that he accepts the latter. How local authorities use their resources is, of course, very much a matter for them.
  My hon. Friend and others expressed anxiety about rural schools. The regulations will make it clear that outwith a certain distance my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's permission will be required on school closures. In other words, where the distance between schools in a rural area is more than a specified amount, the matter will automatically be referred to my right hon. Friend for his approval.
  My hon. Friend also mentioned the question of assisted places and travelling costs. The number of schools in the scheme will be almost double that in the old grant-aided scheme. Under the grant-aided scheme, there were 22 schools. Under the assisted places scheme, there will be 41 schools. A 25-mile radius will qualify low-income families for travelling expenses, but 85 per cent. of the population of Scotland will, in fact, live within a 25-mile radius of schools in the assisted places scheme. That is a remarkable transformation compared with the scheme that we are abolishing in the legislation.
  I listened to the strong nationalist noises of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire and his objection to English votes on Scottish Bills. I am sure that his English colleagues hope that from now on he will not exercise his Scottish vote on any English Bill. There is clearly something wrong with the air in South Ayrshire. To judge from the hon. Gentleman's record and that of his predecessor, it seems to attract the politically suicidal.
  The whole object of the Bill, as my right hon. Friend and I have repeatedly pointed out, is to try to improve the quality of education through parental choice and to provide a statutory framework within which parents can choose the schools that their children attend. In doing that, a system of independent appeals will be set up with recourse to the sheriff where this is necessary. Education authorities will
  1076
  be required to make information available to parents—and why not?—so that parents will have a reasonable amount of information on which to base their choice.
  I was glad that the Educational Institute of Scotland generally welcomes the principle that parents should be allowed a measure of choice in the schools that their children attend, although it has some reservations about the machinery.
  On the subject of special educational needs, the Bill implements the fundamental changes in attitude and approach to the education needs of handicapped children and young people recommended by the Warnock committee. I was glad to see from almost all of the speeches, perhaps more gradually in some than in others, that there seems to be a consensus of support and understanding of the desirability of introducing these proposals in Scotland as soon as possible.
  We have, therefore, the prospect of producing, for the first time in 20 years, a Scottish education Bill of significance, which I believe will be well appreciated by the users of the education system in Scotland. I agree that it is slanted towards the consumer rather than the education authorities, and I make no apology for that, because it is in that area that the imbalance so clearly lies at the moment. That is why I have been astonished to hear one Labour spokesman after another defend the bureaucracy against the interests of the people they claim to represent.
  That is what we are trying to put right in the Bill. We shall proceed through its stages in the House in the knowledge that the vast majority of the people of Scotland want us to do this and to give them a better choice in their children's education.
  Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 306, Noes 254.

  Division No. 69]

  [10.00 pm

  AYES

  Adley, Robert

  Bruce-Gardyne, John

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Alexander, Richard

  Buchanan-Smith, HonAlick

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Buck, Antony

  Ancram, Michael

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Arnold, Tom

  Burden, SirFrederick

  Atkins, Robert(PrestonN)

  Butcher, John

  Atkinson, David(B'm'th, E)

  Butler, HonAdam

  Baker, Kenneth(St.M'bone)

  Carlisle, John(Luton West)

  Baker, Nicholas(NDorset)

  Carlisle, Kenneth(Lincoln)

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R'c'n)

  Bell, SirRonald

  Chalker, Mrs. Lynda

  Bendall, Vivian

  Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul

  Benyon, Thomas(A 'don)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Benyon, W. (Buckingham)

  Churchill, W.S.

  Best, Keith

  Clark, Hon A.(Plym'th, S'n)

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Clark, Sir W.(Croydon S)

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Clarke, Kenneth(Rushcliffe)

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Clegg, SirWalter

  Blackburn, John

  Colvin, Michael

  Blaker, Peter

  Cope, John

  Body, Richard

  Cormack, Patrick

  Bonsor, SirNicholas

  Costain, SirAlbert

  Boscawen, HonRobert

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Bottomley, Peter(W'wich W)

  Critchley, Julian

  Bowden, Andrew

  Crouch, David

  Boyson, DrRhodes

  Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

  Braine, SirBernard

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Bright, Graham

  Douglas-Hamilton, LordJ.

  Brinton, Tim

  Dover, Denshore

  Brittan, Leon

  du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

  Brooke, Hon Peter

  Dunn, Robert(Dartford)

  Brotherton, Michael

  Durant, Tony

  Brown, M.(BriggandScun)

  Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

  Browne, John(Winchester)

  Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

  1077

  Eggar, Tim

  Latham, Michael

  Elliott, SirWilliam

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Emery, Peter

  Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

  Eyre, Reginald

  Lee, John

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Lennox-Boyd, HonMark

  Faith, MrsSheila

  Lester Jim (Beeston)

  Farr, John

  Lewis, Kenneth(Rutland)

  Fenner, Mrs Peggy

  Lloyd, Ian (Havant & W'loo)

  Finsberg, Geoffrey

  Loveridge, John

  Fisher, SirNigel

  Luce, Richard

  Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)

  Lyell, Nicholas

  Fletcher-Cooke, SirCharles

  McCrindle, Robert

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Forman, Nigel

  MacGregor, John

  Fowler, RtHon Norman

  MacKay, John(Argyll)

  Fox, Marcus

  Macmillan, Rt Hon M.

  Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh

  McNair-Wilson, M.(N'bury)

  Fraser, J. (Lamb'th, N'w'd)

  McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)

  Fry, Peter

  McQuarrie, Albert

  Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.

  Madel, David

  Gardiner, George(Reigate)

  Major, John

  Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

  Marland, Paul

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Marlow, Tony

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  MarshallMichael(Arundel)

  Goodhart, Philip

  Marten, Neil (Banbury)

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Mates, Michael

  Gorst, John

  Mather, Carol

  Gow, Ian

  Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Mawby, Ray

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

  Mawhinney, DrBrian

  Gray, Hamish

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Greenway, Harry

  Mayhew, Patrick

  Grieve, Percy

  Mellor, David

  Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Grist, Ian

  Miller, Hal(B'grove)

  Grylls, Michael

  Mills, lain(Meriden)

  Gummer, JohnSelwyn

  Mills, Peter (West Devon)

  Hamilton, Hon A.

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Mitchell, David(Basingstoke)

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Moate, Roger

  Hannam, John

  Monro, Hector

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Hastings, Stephen

  Moore, John

  Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

  Morgan, Geraint

  Hawkins, Paul

  Morris, M. (N'hampton S)

  Hawksley, Warren

  Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

  Heath, Rt Hon Edward

  Mudd, David

  Heddle, John

  Murphy, Christopher

  Henderson, Barry

  Myles, David

  Heseltine, RtHon Michael

  Needham, Richard

  Hicks, Robert

  Nelson, Anthony

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L

  Neubert, Michael

  Hill, James

  Newton, Tony

  Hogg, HonDouglas(Gr'th'm)

  Nott, Rt Hon John

  Holland, Philip(Carlton)

  Onslow, Cranley

  Hooson, Tom

  Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

  Hordern, Peter

  Osborn, John

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Page, Rt Hon Sir G. (Crosby)

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldf'd)

  Page, Richard (SW Herts)

  Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Parkinson, Cecil

  Hunt, David (Wirral)

  Parris, Matthew

  Hunt, John(Ravensbourne)

  Patten, Christopher(Bath)

  Hurd, HonDouglas

  Patten, John (Oxford)

  lrving, Charles(Cheltenham)

  Pattie, Geoffrey

  Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

  Pawsey, James

  Jessel, Toby

  Pink, R.Bonner

  JohnsonSmith, Geoffrey

  Pollock, Alexander

  Jopling, RtHonMichael

  Porter, Barry

  Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  Kaberry, SirDonald

  Price, SirDavid(Eastleigh)

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Prior, Rt Hon James

  Kimball, Marcus

  Proctor, K. Harvey

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Pym, Rt Hon Francis

  Kitson, SirTimothy

  Raison, Timothy

  Knight, MrsJill

  Rathbone, Tim

  Knox, David

  Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)

  Lamont, Norman

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Lang, Ian

  Renton, Tim

  Langford-Holt, SirJohn

  Rhodes James, Robert

  1078

  Rhys Williams, SirBrandon

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Ridley, HonNicholas

  Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Thompson, Donald

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Thorne, Neil(llfordSouth)

  Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)

  Townend, John(Bridlington)

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)

  Rossi, Hugh

  Trippier, David

  Rost, Peter

  Trotter, Neville

  Sainsbury, HonTimothy

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.

  Vaughan, DrGerard

  Scott, Nicholas

  Viggers, Peter

  Shaw, Michael(Scarborough)

  Waddington, David

  Shelton, William(Streatham)

  Wakeham, John

  Shepherd, Colin(Hereford)

  Waldegrave, HonWilliam

  Shepherd, Richard

  Walker, B. (Perth)

  Shersby, Michael

  Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.

  Silvester, Fred

  Wall, Patrick

  Sims, Roger

  Waller, Gary

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Walters, Dennis

  Smith, Dudley

  Ward, John

  Speller, Tony

  Warren, Kenneth

  Spence, John

  Watson, John

  Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)

  Wells, John(Maidstone)

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Wells, Bowen

  Sproat, lain

  Wheeler, John

  Squire, Robin

  Whitelaw, RtHon William

  Stainton, Keith

  Wickenden, Keith

  Stanbrook, lvor

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Stanley, John

  Wilkinson, John

  Steen, Anthony

  Williams, D.(Montgomery)

  Stevens, Martin

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

  Wolfson, Mark

  Stewart, A.(ERenfrewshire)

  Young, SirGeorge(Actor)

  Stokes, John

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Tapsell, Peter

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Taylor, Robert(Croydon NW)

  Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Mr. Anthony Berry.

  Tebbit, Norman

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Cook, Robin F.

  Adams, Allen

  Cowans, Harry

  Alton, David

  Cox, T.(W'dsw'th, Toot'g)

  Anderson, Donald

  Craigen, J. M.

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Crowther, J.S.

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ernest

  Cryer, Bob

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Ashton, Joe

  Cunningham, G.(lslingtonS)

  Atkinson, H.(H'gey, )

  Cunningham, DrJ. (W'h'n)

  Bagier, GordonA.T.

  Dalyell, Tam

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Davidson, Arthur

  Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

  Beith, A. J.

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Benn, Rt Hon A. Wedgwood

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

  Bennett.Andrew(St 'kp 'tN)

  Davis, T. (B'ham, Stechf'd)

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Deakins, Eric

  Booth, Rt Hon Albert

  Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

  Boothroyd, MissBetty

  Dewar, Donald

  Bradley, Tom

  Dixon, Donald

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Dobson, Frank

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Dormand, Jack

  Brown, R. C. (N'castle W)

  Douglas, Dick

  Brown, Hon(E'burgh, Leith)

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Brown, Ronald W. (H'ckn'yS)

  Dubs, Alfred

  Callaghan, Jim(Midd't'n&P)

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Campbell, Ian

  Dunn, James A.

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Dunnett, Jack

  Canavan, Dennis

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

  Cant, R. B.

  Eastham, Ken

  Carmichael, Neil

  Edwards, R. (W'hampt'n S E)

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Ellis, R. (NE D'bysh're)

  Cartwright, John

  Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  English, Michael

  Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)

  Ennals, Rt Hon David

  Cohen, Stanley

  Evans, loan (Aberdare)

  Coleman, Donald

  Evans, John (Newton)

  Concannon, Rt Hon J.D.

  Ewing, Harry

  Conlan, Bernard

  Field, Frank

  1079

  Fitch,Alan

  Mason, Rt Hon Roy

  Flannery,Martin

  Maxton,John

  Fletcher,Raymond(llkeston)

  Maynard,Miss Joan

  Fletcher,Ted (Darlington)

  Meacher,Michael

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Mellish,RtHonRobert

  Ford, Ben

  Mikardo,lan

  Forrester,John

  Millan,Rt Hon Bruce

  Foster,Derek

  Miller, Dr M.S. (E Kilbride)

  Foulkes,George

  Mitchell,Austin(Grimsby)

  Fraser, J. (Lamb'th, N'w'd)

  Mitchell, R.C. (Soton Itchen)

  Freeson,Rt Hon Reginald

  Molyneaux,James

  Freud,Clement

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Garrett, John (Norwich S)

  Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)

  Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  George,Bruce

  Morton,George

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

  Ginsburg,David

  Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

  Golding,John

  Newens,Stanley

  Graham,Ted

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Grant,George(Morpeth)

  Ogden,Eric

  Grant, John (Islington C)

  O'Neill,Martin

  Grimond, Rt Hon J.

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Hamilton,James(Bothwell)

  Palmer,Arthur

  Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)

  Park,George

  Hardy, Peter

  Parker,John

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Parry,Robert

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Pavitt,Laurie

  Haynes, Frank

  Pendry,Tom

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Penhaligon,David

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Powell, Rt Hon J.E. (S Down)

  Hogg, N.(EDunb't'nshire)

  Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

  Holland,S. (L'b'th,Vauxh'll)

  Prescott,John

  HomeRobertson,John

  Price, C. (Lewisham W)

  Homewood,William

  Race, Reg

  Hooley,Frank

  Radice,Giles

  Horam,John

  Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)

  Howell,Rt Hon D.

  Richardson,Jo

  Howells,Geraint

  Roberts,Allan(Bootle)

  Huckfield,Les

  Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

  Hudson Davies, Gwilym E.

  Roberts,Gwilym(Cannock)

  Hughes,Mark(Durham)

  Robertson,George

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Rodgers, Rt Hon William

  Janner,Hon Greville

  Rooker, J.W.

  Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

  Roper,John

  John,Brynmor

  Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)

  Johnson, James (Hull West)

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

  Ross,Wm.(Londonderry)

  Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rh'dda)

  Rowlands,Ted

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Ryman,John

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Sandelson, Neville

  Kerr, Russell

  Sheerman,Barry

  Kilfedder,James A.

  Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

  KiIroy-Silk,Robert

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Lambie,David

  Short, Mrs Renée

  Lamborn, Harry

  Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)

  Lamond,James

  Silkin, Rt Hon S.C. (Dulwich)

  Leadbitter,Ted

  Silverman,Julius

  Lestor, Miss Joan

  Skinner,Dennis

  Lewis,Arthur(N'ham NW)

  Snape,Peter

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Soley,Clive

  Litherland,Robert

  Spriggs,Leslie

  Lofthouse,Geoffrey

  Stallard,A.W.

  Lyon,Alexander(york)

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson

  Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

  McCartney, Hugh

  Stoddart, David

  McCusker,H.

  Stott,Roger

  McDonald, DrOonagh

  Strang, Gavin

  McElhone,Frank

  Straw,Jack

  McGuire,Michael(lnce)

  Summerskill,HonDrShirley

  MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

  Maclennan,Robert

  Thomas,Jeffrey(Abertillery)

  McNally,Thomas

  Thomas, DrR.(Carmarthen)

  McTaggart,Robert

  Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

  McWilliam,John

  Tilley,John

  Marks,Kenneth

  Tinn,James

  Marshall, D(G'gowS'ton)

  Torney,Tom

  Marshall,DrEdmund (Goole)

  Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Wainwright,E.(Dearne V)

  Martin,M(G'gowS'burn)

  Walker, Rt Hon H.(D'caster)

  1080

  Watkins,David

  Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

  Weetch,Ken

  Wilson, Rt Hon Sir H.(H'ton)

  Wellbeloved,James

  Wilson, William (C'try SE)

  Welsh,Michael

  Winnick,David

  White, J. (G'gowPollok)

  Woolmer,Kenneth

  Whitehead,Phillip

  Wrigglesworth,lan

  Whitlock,William

  Young, David (Bolton E)

  Wigley,Dafydd

  Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Williams, Rt Hon A.(S'sea W)

  Mr. Ron Leighton and

  Williams,SirT.(W'ton)

  Mr. Allen McKay.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) (NO. 2) [MONEY]
  (Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the law relating to education in Scotland, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of—

  (a) any expenses incurred by the Secretary of State under that Act; and

  (b) any increase attributable to that Act in the sums payable out of such moneys under any other Act.—[Mr. Alexander Fletcher.]

  IRON AND STEEL (BORROWING POWERS) BILL
  Ordered,
  That, in respect of the Iron and Steel (Borrowing Powers) Bill, notices of amendments to be moved in Committee may be accepted by the Clerks at the Table before the Bill has been read a Second time.—[Mr. Brooke.]

  School Leavers (Index Project Training)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Brooke.]
  10.14 pm
  Mr. Leslie Spriggs: It is a great privilege for me, on behalf of index project, a training scheme for school leavers, to explain to the Under-Secretary of State for Employment what index project training for school leavers really means, as briefly as I can, within the 15 minutes allotted to me.
  First, local initiative is something to be commended and given support. Index project is a programme which involves the youth opportunities programme for jobs which exist now and for jobs in the future. The total annual cost will be approximately £200,000 for the first 18 months for 50 young people.
  We need to ensure that a pattern of preparation for work is introduced and developed which will, first, provide the facilities to prepare young people for these occupations, and, second, offer education to make adaptable and versatile people recognise that such preparation involves education, and prepare them for life, as distinct from the narrower and traditional interpretation of providing the limited practical skills required in a particular job.
  In the past, these young people would find work at 14 in low wage, low technology jobs. In an unstructured and unsystematic way, industry then prepared them for adult working life until they were paid adult rates at 21. Now they leave school at 16 and reach adult wages at 18.

  1081
  The raising of the school leaving age and the lowering of the age of adulthood to 18, the Yom Kippur war and the subsequent oil crisis, employment protection legislation and rapidly accelerating technological changes all occurred at the same time. They coincided with the effects of moving from the fallow fifties to the swinging sixties some 16 years earlier, and together they have induced a steep change in the order of things.
  The cumulative effect of these events is that industry no longer trains young people for adult working life through employment, and that there can be no reversal of the new order. If we fail to take new measures now to deal creatively and imaginatively with this group of young people, the ineluctible outcome will be a progressive deterioration in the standard of the work force, with resulting economic and social degradation.
  To ensure the future, we must innovate. We must change conventional wisdom and recognise that work preparation for these young people can no longer be left to, or forced upon, the individual employer, with the Government taking no more than short-term palliative measures for the unemployed.
  A federal project is required. In St. Helens, we are trying the federal approach by establishing index project, intended as a pilot project designed to be effective by means of a federation of the local authority and central Government in the new conditions now upon us. There is a growing national recognition that because the nation, as well as employers, benefit from a high quality work force, a national involvement in the preparation of the work force is required.
  In St. Helens we take the view that local solutions to the problems should be adopted. Index project has been designed on that principle. Index project is not seen as an all-embracing answer to the problems of preparing young people for adult work.
  A selection of opportunities is currently available, and should continue. These are higher education, further education, apprenticeships, the youth opportunities programme for the unemployed and based on local industrial requirements. All the evidence points to a shrinking opportunity for juvenile employment in the years leading to adult, unskilled employment—this the only sector not overtly supported by the nation.
  However, index does not demand that the cost should be borne by the Government. It should be shared by those who benefit, including the nation. Nor does it accept that the education service solely can undertake the cost and free employers from accepting the responsibilities and training for the immediate job.
  Index project is an innovation by a town willing to face up to its responsibilities for the future. We ask the Government to play their part.
  The commitment of the Government to the youth opportunities programme is an admirable first step in that direction. But it is only a first step. These measures do not conclusively bridge the gap between leaving school and adult work. Nor do they demand an equivalent commitment to the young people from employers who traditionally, or now more increasingly, confine their recruitment to adults.
  The local commitment to index is growing constantly. For example, Pilkington Brothers currently has one manager actively in the development of the scheme and the
  1082
  provision of facilities and a specialist assistant to assist him, at an approximate cost of £11,000. National Westminster Bank has one manager actively assisting in the development of the project, at a cost per annum of £9,000. There are other organisations, such as Barclays Bank, which plays a major role in preparing the project for when it gets off the ground. We hope that it will commence in April, when an Index Co. Ltd. will be set up as a limited company and then, of course, the real work will commence.
  Local authority accepts its role as an employer as well as representing the community itself. Every effort will be made by council offices to identify premises which will be suitable for the operation of index project. The borough council will endeavour to give whatever financial support it can. Such support could be through the provision of a specific grant, or to assist in meeting operational costs of index and/or granting rating relief, depending upon the circumstances at any one time.
  At least 50 firms, collectively employing 41,000 workers—that is, 68 per cent. of the working population in the metropolitan district—accept the need and the concept. They intend to participate in the project when it gets off the ground. They are willing to consider secondment of personnel to the project. Each of the 50 firms will recruit from the young people who complete their contract under the index scheme. Clearly from time to time assistance will vary according to circumstances. Everybody understands that not all firms that make a commitment will be able to continue that commitment.
  Several firms have agreed to second their staff for training purposes at their own cost. Currently firms are co-operating with index in identifying the job content of their own employees occupations. The work is carried out with the assistance of the Food, Drink and Tobacco Industry Board as the first phase of the design of the index training programme.
  The trade union movement and the work force in St. Helens will be fully committed to the concept and the project. Each participating group will be represented on the board of the company—Index Project Ltd. The estimated funding requirement of about £200,000 per annum represents about £2,600 per annum, per trainee, including national insurance contributions which will be returned to the Exchequer. The figures are contained in appendix D. The Minister is welcome to a copy of it.
  The Rainford Trust has shown its support for the project with a grant of £10,000 and it has pledged a continuing interest in the project. Pilkington Brothers is to grant £50,000. Barclays and National Westminster Banks are playing a major role in the project.
  Unemployed young person's benefit amounts to £670 a year. Under the youth opportunities programme training workshop financing, the Exchequer can bear costs of about £2,300 per annum, per trainee, even though the scheme does not deal with the real need to bridge the gap conclusively between school and adult employment. The index project conclusively bridges the gap between school and training. On completion of 18 months training young persons are recruited directly into employment on a permanent basis by one of the 50 firms supporting the project.
  St. Helens and the young people in the catchment area owe a great deal to Mr. W. K. Atherton, the head of Pilkington Brothers group training department, for the excellent work on the original design which is now

  1083
  christened the "index project." We owe our deepest gratitude to all our the public-spirited people who have indicated their support for St. Helens school leavers and their future. We owe them all deepest gratitude. It gives me pleasure to commend the index project to the House and to call on the Government to give it their blessing and financial support.
  10.30 pm
  The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Peter Morrison): I am delighted that we have the opportunity for a proper debate on the matter raised by the hon. Member for St. Helens (Mr. Spriggs). About three weeks ago, we had only about one minute's debate on the hon. Gentleman's private Member's motion. He informed me that he was likely to raise the matter on the Adjournment. I said that I would be pleased if he did so and I am delighted to be able to debate the matter as carefully as I can.
  When I was a new boy, I was frightened when I came to the House for the first time. I will always owe the hon. Gentleman a great personal debt because when I was due to attend my first meeting of the 1922 Committee in Room 14 I did not know where the Room was and I asked the hon. Gentleman, even though I did not know him at the time. We were in the bowels of the House and he kindly took me all the way up to Committee Room 14. He will not remember that, but I do, and I shall always be grateful to him.
  As has been well demonstrated tonight, the hon. Gentleman has always taken a close interest in the index training scheme. If I may say so, without sounding incredibly pompous, I admire the interest that he has taken, because I also believe that there is much to be said for the scheme.
  The hon. Gentleman and I are neighbours in the North-West. Our constituencies are not far apart. We share the concern, felt by all hon. Members, about young people who cannot find a job. I hope that, when I say that I am concerned about what is happening in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, he realises that it comes from the heart, because I am just down the road from him and I know the problems of St. Helens personally rather than from a distance.
  Like the hon. Gentleman, I welcome any initiative taken by any individual or group of individuals or companies to help young people without work. I was interested to hear the figures quoted by the hon. Gentleman. He said that the scheme put to the MSC would cost £200,000 for 50 young people. I am sure that the commission is aware of the figures and will take them carefully into account.
  The Government cannot do the whole thing on their own. We rely on co-operation from many bodies. That is why the index project is encouraging to me. The Government welcome the idea of individuals coming forward with schemes so that perhaps we can put a catalyst together to get the show on the road. In that respect, the sponsors of the scheme have my full support.
  I was also interested to hear the hon. Gentleman refer to the St. Helens scheme as a federal solution. My eyebrows rose, but then I realised exactly what he meant. It was the right way of putting it. Local authorities as well as Government, industry and trade unions should all be involved, and I agree with the hon. Gentleman about a federal solution.
  1084
  I hope that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I am reasonably new to my job. Therefore, I had to do a bit of what I would call "educating Archie" to ascertain the exact nature of the index scheme. I must admit that on my Cheshire network I have heard about it, but only briefly, over the past two years. I have tried my best to get to the bottom of the scheme and to examine it carefully. I gather that the index project has already put two proposals to the Manpower Services Commission. It would not be in the interests of the House if we went over that ground again. We have to examine the third proposal and determine where we can help.
  The main difficulty with the third proposal is that the scheme's sponsors say that the young people involved would be on the scheme for 22 months whereas the rules of the youth opportunities programme are that they should be on it for only 12 months. We have a divide of 10 months. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that, although there can be—I hope that there will be—a compromise, the YOP programme must have some rules, not least because it is spending vast amounts of taxpayers' money. We must have some rules laid down, otherwise one would not be able to help via the programme as many young unemployed as are helped at present.
  Through the YOP programme three times as many young people will be helped in 1981–82 compared with 1978–79. There is a vast increase in the programme. In 1981–82 440,000 young people will have the opportunity to take up a place under the programme providing that they have been unemployed for three months.
  The Government are caring and are doing their bit. However, there is still a gap between the index scheme and the 10-month rule. What do we do? The hon. Gentleman said that Mr. Atherton has been a tremendous supporter and sponsor of the scheme. I gather that Mr. Atherton has written to the Manpower Services Commission asking for a meeting. I gather, too, that Mr. Holland from the MSC replied on 6 Febmary—I may be wrong on the exact day—saying that the commission was still considering some support and that a meeting would be forthcoming.
  I hope, like the hon. Gentleman, that the meeting will be forthcoming and that it will be as productive as is possible. The divide is 10 months. I hope that both sides will consider carefully how each can help the other. I can give the hon. Gentleman a personal undertaking that as the Minister in this place who answers for these matters—my noble Friend the Minister of State, Lord Gowrie, is responsible in another place—I shall follow carefully the developments in the negotiations subsequent to the letter sent by Mr. Holland to Mr. Atherton. If there is anything that I or my noble Friend Lord Gowrie can do to help along the negotiations, we shall do it on behalf of not just the hon. Gentleman but his constituents.
  I hope that I have given the hon. Gentleman the idea that I am concerned that we should, within reason, come to a happy conclusion of this event. There is no doubt that when a group of individuals—they are companies, but individuals are sponsoring the project—get together and try to do something constructive, the Government should do what they can to help, within reason.
  I gather that the new company—Industrial Experience Projects Ltd.—has agreed to sponsor a project-based work experience scheme, under the youth opportunities programme. The hon. Gentleman said that he thought that it would go ahead in April. I hope that it will be as soon as that. I have been led to believe that it would probably

  1085
  be the autumn, but we need not quibble over the date at the moment. I gather that a "fit" is going on in one respect, but there is a "non-fit" in another respect.
  I cannot reiterate enough my admiration of all the sponsors who have got together and tried to organise a scheme. It is the sort of ethos of life that I wish to promote and that the Government would wish to promote, because we believe that individuals or companies are better at doing things than Governments are on their behalf. I applaud everything that they have done. I hope that the matter will come to a successful fruition, provided that the companies understand the obvious constraints which we are under with regard to taxpayers' money. I am sure that they will understand them.
  1086
  I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising this important matter. It is important not just to him as the constituency Member. If we get the scheme going, it would be an example which other parts of the country could follow. I hope that the hon. Gentleman realises how grateful I am to him that he has raised the matter. At the beginning of his speech he talked about the fallow 'fifties and the swinging 'sixties. I thought that my speech could not live up to that alliteration. It has not, but I hope that he realises how sincere I am in reacting to the thoughts that he has put to the House this evening.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at eighteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.

Overseas Development
  Cultural Property (Preservation)
  Cultural Property (Preservation)
Civil Service
  Freedom of Information Act
  Freedom of Information Act
Northern Ireland
  Housing Stock
  Housing Stock
  Farm Incomes
  Farm Incomes
  Unemployed Persons
  Unemployed Persons
  Prison Accommodation
  Prison Accommodation
  Construction Industry
  Construction Industry
  Security
  Security
  Special Security Protection
  Special Security Protection
  Euroweld, East Belfast
  Euroweld, East Belfast
  De Lorean Car Company Limited
  De Lorean Car Company Limited
  Dog Wardens
  Dog Wardens
Home Department
  Mr. Charles Richardson
  Mr. Charles Richardson
  Prisoners (Offences)
  Prisoners (Offences)
  Juvenile Offenders
  Juvenile Offenders
  Prisoners (Remission)
  Prisoners (Remission)
  Remanded Persons (Brixton Prison)
  Remanded Persons (Brixton Prison)
  Open Channel Radio
  Open Channel Radio
  Prize Machines (Public Houses)
  Prize Machines (Public Houses)
  Soliciting (Prison Sentences)
  Soliciting (Prison Sentences)
  Women Prisoners (Costs)
  Women Prisoners (Costs)
  Nationality
  Nationality
Wales
  Marginal Land Survey
  Marginal Land Survey
  Poultry Industry
  Poultry Industry
  Rent and Rate Rebates
  Rent and Rate Rebates
  Housing Investment Programmes
  Housing Investment Programmes
  House Building
  House Building
  Council House Sales
  Council House Sales
  Community Health Councils
  Community Health Councils
Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs
  Hong Kong (Refugees)
  Hong Kong (Refugees)
  Malawi (British Detainees)
  Malawi (British Detainees)
  Dependent Territories (Populations)
  Dependent Territories (Populations)
European Community
  Budget Rebates (German Minister's Speech)
  Budget Rebates (German Minister's Speech)
Education and Science
  Teachers (Pensions)
  Teachers (Pensions)
  Departmental Staff (Canteen Facilities)
  Departmental Staff (Canteen Facilities)
  Teachers (Redundancy Pay)
  Teachers (Redundancy Pay)
  Inner London Education Authority
  Inner London Education Authority
  Young Persons
  Young Persons
  Victoria and Albert Museum Slide Library
  Victoria and Albert Museum Slide Library
  Maintenance Orders
  Maintenance Orders
  Divorce (Financial Consequences)
  Divorce (Financial Consequences)
  Legal Costs
  Legal Costs
  Judgments (Enforcement)
  Judgments (Enforcement)
House of Commons
  Souvenir Shop
  Souvenir Shop
  Prime Minister (Engagements)
  Prime Minister (Engagements)
  European Community (Council of Ministers)
  European Community (Council of Ministers)
  Northern Ireland
  Northern Ireland
  Nationalised Industries
  Nationalised Industries
  Trades Union Congress
  Trades Union Congress
  Namibia
  Namibia
  Wales
  Wales
  European Community States (Economic and Political Union)
  European Community States (Economic and Political Union)
  Scott Committee
  Scott Committee
  Public Appointees (Political Statements)
  Public Appointees (Political Statements)
  Soviet Union (Subsidised Food Supplies)
  Soviet Union (Subsidised Food Supplies)
  Fisheries
  Fisheries
  Personal Injury
  Personal Injury
Scotland
  National Health Service Property
  National Health Service Property
  Homelessness
  Homelessness
  Diabetics
  Diabetics
  Milk-borne Disease
  Milk-borne Disease
  Rate Revenue
  Rate Revenue
  Torness Power Station (Transmission Lines)
  Torness Power Station (Transmission Lines)
  Scottish Special Housing Association (Glasgow Programme)
  Scottish Special Housing Association (Glasgow Programme)
  Women Teachers
  Women Teachers
  Mr. Ian Mackie
  Mr. Ian Mackie
  Canadian Lobsters
  Canadian Lobsters
Industry
  Assisted Area Status
  Assisted Area Status
  Talbot Motor Company
  Talbot Motor Company
  British Leyland
  British Leyland
  Motor Vehicle Industry (Statistics)
  Motor Vehicle Industry (Statistics)
  Prestcold
  Prestcold
  Regional Aid
  Regional Aid
Defence
  Defoliants
  Defoliants
  "Coping with the Holocaust" (Symposium)
  "Coping with the Holocaust" (Symposium)
  Nuclear Explosions
  Nuclear Explosions
National Finance
  Income Tax Appeals
  Income Tax Appeals
  European Community Budget
  European Community Budget
  Public Expenditure (International Comparisons)
  Public Expenditure (International Comparisons)
  Coinage
  Coinage
  Common Agricultural Policy
  Common Agricultural Policy
  Food Exports (Subsidies)
  Food Exports (Subsidies)
Transport
  Lorries (Speed Limits)
  Lorries (Speed Limits)
  Express Coach Services
  Express Coach Services
  Motor Accessories and Components (Counterfeiting)
  Motor Accessories and Components (Counterfeiting)
  British Railways Board Subsidiaries (Private Capital)
  British Railways Board Subsidiaries (Private Capital)
  Electrification
  Electrification
  M23, Hooley
  M23, Hooley
Social Services
  Family Incomes
  Family Incomes
  Unemployed Persons (Further Education)
  Unemployed Persons (Further Education)
  Children Act 1975
  Children Act 1975
  Supplementary Benefit
  Supplementary Benefit
  Vasectomy
  Vasectomy
  Unemployment Benefit
  Unemployment Benefit
  Benefits
  Benefits
  Family Doctors (Incapacity Certificates)
  Family Doctors (Incapacity Certificates)
  Smoking and Advertising
  Smoking and Advertising
  Child Benefit
  Child Benefit
  Chelsea Flower Show (Disabled Persons)
  Chelsea Flower Show (Disabled Persons)
  Cigarette Packets (Health Warnings)
  Cigarette Packets (Health Warnings)
  Unemployment Benefit (Fishermen)
  Unemployment Benefit (Fishermen)
  Pension Rights (Transferability)
  Pension Rights (Transferability)
  Charging Policies (Report)
  Charging Policies (Report)
  Sick Pay
  Sick Pay
  Hospitals and Clinics (Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster)
  Hospitals and Clinics (Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster)
Environment
  Council House Sales
  Council House Sales
  Homeless Persons
  Homeless Persons
  Local Authority Building (Tendering Procedures)
  Local Authority Building (Tendering Procedures)
  Countryside Commission (Newcastle Office)
  Countryside Commission (Newcastle Office)
  Cumbria
  Cumbria
  Rate Rebates
  Rate Rebates
  Rent Rebates
  Rent Rebates
  Council House Rents
  Council House Rents
  Northumberland (Ministerial Visit)
  Northumberland (Ministerial Visit)
  Self-build Housing Associations
  Self-build Housing Associations
  Housing Requirements
  Housing Requirements
  Local Authorities (Manpower)
  Local Authorities (Manpower)
  Noise Advisory Council
  Noise Advisory Council
  Manpower Savings (Rent Assessment Panels)
  Manpower Savings (Rent Assessment Panels)
  Rural Areas (Designation)
  Rural Areas (Designation)
Agriculture, Fisheries and Food
  Fish Stocks (Conservation)
  Fish Stocks (Conservation)
  Fish (Illegal Marketing)
  Fish (Illegal Marketing)
  New Zealand Butter
  New Zealand Butter
  Surplus Commodities
  Surplus Commodities
  Trees
  Trees
  European Community Budget (Green Pound)
  European Community Budget (Green Pound)
Northern Ireland
  Disabled Persons
  Disabled Persons
  Housing Executive
  Housing Executive
  Maze Prison
  Maze Prison
  Sports Council
  Sports Council
  Disabled Persons (Housing Executive)
  Disabled Persons (Housing Executive)
  Maze Prison
  Maze Prison
Employment
  Special Development Areas
  Special Development Areas
Temporary Short-time Working Compensation
  Scheme
  Scheme
  Job Opportunities (Television Advertising)
  Job Opportunities (Television Advertising)
  Manchester
  Manchester
  Redundancy Payments
  Redundancy Payments
  Female Unemployment (Derbyshire)
  Female Unemployment (Derbyshire)
  School Leavers
  School Leavers
  Job Vacancies (Derbyshire)
  Job Vacancies (Derbyshire)
  Redundancies (Derbyshire)
  Redundancies (Derbyshire)
  Unemployed Persons
  Unemployed Persons
  Unemployment Statistics
  Unemployment Statistics
  Disabled Persons
  Disabled Persons

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Truro.
The Lord Greenhill The Lord Greenhill—Took the Oath.

Lords Abolition: Referendum Provision
Lord Alport: 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 what consideration is being given by Ministers to the possibility of introducing legislation in the next Session of Parliament to ensure that any attempt by a future Government to abolish the Second Chamber is submitted to a constitutional referendum.
The Lord President of the Council (Lord Soames): My Lords, I informed the House during the debate on the Second Reading of my noble friend's Constitutional Referendum Bill in December last that the Government would consider whether measures should be taken to protect the existence of the Second Chamber. This they are doing, but no conclusion has yet been reached.
Lord Alport: My Lords, in view of the Answer of my noble friend, may I ask leave of the House to take time to consider the impact of that on the progress of the Constitutional Referendum Bill which had its Second Reading before Christmas, and then consider what action to take?
Lord Soames: My Lords, yes, of course; that is up to my noble friend.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, could the noble Lord tell us how you prevent a subsequent sovereign Government from repealing a referendum Bill in just the same way as it could repeal any other Bill, if necessary, by creating an adequate number of Peers?
Lord Soames: My Lords, if I remember rightly, this was a point made by the noble Lord during the course of the debate. It is one of the many knotty problems associated with this question, and that is why the matter is still under consideration.

Canada: Statute of Westminster, s. 7(1)
3.8 p.m.
Lord Alport: 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 they will introduce legislation to repeal Section 7,
278
subsection (1), of the Statute of Westminster (22 Geo. 5. c. 4).
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Lord Carrington): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government have no plans to introduce legislation to repeal Section 7(1) of the Statute of Westminster, except at the request and with the consent of Canada.
Lord Alport: My Lords, may I say that it is not necessary for legislation of this kind to be brought into the United Kingdom Parliament to have the request and the consent of Canada? In view of the fact that it is now 114 years since the passing of the British North America Act and 50 years since the passing of the Statute of Westminster, may I ask my noble friend whether it would not be right, in order to prevent any disagreement or misunderstanding between the United Kingdom and Canada, for the United Kingdom Parliament to take action unilaterally to repeal what is really a last relic of the colonial status of Canada, which would then place Canada on an equal constitutional relationship with the United Kingdom with other Commonwealth countries such as Botswana and Bangladesh?
Lord Carrington: My Lords, unilateral action by the United Kingdom to patriate the Canadian Constitution would be contrary to the Request and Consent Convention recited in the Preamble to the Statute of Westminster.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, would the noble Lord take this opportunity of denying an apparent allegation in the press that agents of Her Majesty's Government, in this context, have been tapping the telephone lines of the High Commissioner for Canada?
Lord Carrington: My Lords, it is the convention in Parliament and outside that we never make comments on that kind of thing.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, would the noble Lord be good enough to define what is meant by the "request and consent of Canada"?
Lord Carrington: My Lords, it means that they ask and they want it.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, with great respect, that avoids the question entirely. Does it mean the Provincial Government, the Federal Government, or both? Would the noble Lord be more precise?
Lord Carrington: My Lords, it means the Federal Government.

Reading Glasses
3.11 p.m.
Lord Northfield: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

279
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, despite their continued ban on sale over the counter of cheap reading glasses, they will make it clear that patients are entitled to buy such glasses and that shops can openly offer them for sale to those armed with their prescription, wherever it has been obtained.
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: My Lords, the Opticians Act lays down that only registered medical practitioners and opticians may sell optical appliances to patients. However, under NHS arrangements, patients have a legal right to ask for their prescriptions and take them to any registered practitioner of their choice to be dispensed.
Lord Northfield: My Lords, would the noble Lord take steps to give some publicity to that part of his Answer which indicates to people that they need not buy their spectacles where they have their eyes tested and that, if they know places where they can buy these cheap imported spectacles for £5 or less per pair, they are entitled to go there and buy spectacles if they have obtained their prescription somewhere else?
That is my first question. My second question is this: does the noble Lord realise that, despite the progress that this indicates, we are still in the ridiculous position that people like myself who, as we get older, simply want increased magnifying power in order to be able to read, have to put the state in the position of incurring testing fees in connection with our eyesight, whereas many of us would be glad simply to buy these glasses off the peg, and that many medical people reckon that there is no harm whatsoever in that?
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: My Lords, we have been into this question on a number of occasions before. The situation is that anybody with a prescription can take it to someone who is prepared to sell him glasses. On the other hand, anybody who is selling glasses without an optical practitioner present to make sure that the patient is getting the right glasses is going against the dictates of the General Optical Council and can in fact be prosecuted.
Lord Rugby: My Lords, should not the word "patient" be used with the greatest circumspection, since a great number of people have absolutely nothing wrong with their eyesight? If they are compelled to take eyesight tests, are they not therefore victims, rather than patients?
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: My Lords, the situation is that a patient may have nothing wrong with him, except the fact that he is getting a bit older and cannot see as well as he used to. On the other hand, he could have something else wrong with him, such as hypertension, diabetes or glaucoma, which can easily be seen in an eye examination.
Lord Ferrier: My Lords, would my noble friend the Minister care to repeat the statement he made the last time we had exchanges of this sort, about the advisability of being able to buy glasses without prescription,
280
in order that it will be quite clear that those in the profession agree with what he said on that occasion?
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: I am sorry, my Lords. I really cannot remember what I did say at that time. I am sure that it made very good sense, and if anybody wants to check it he has only to read Hansard.
Lord Wells-Pestell: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether one way out of the present difficulty, which the Government cannot seem to overcome, is to invite Woolworth's to supply the service they supplied 40 years ago?
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: My Lords, Harrods and Selfridge's have been providing this service for some years. Debenham's have now started doing so in most of their shops. Anybody else can have a go as long as they have the services of a registered practitioner.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that anybody buying spectacles off the peg is being utterly foolish, because in so doing he can ruin his eyesight instead of improving it?
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: My Lords, to the tedium of noble Lords I have tried to make that point many times before.
Lord Northfield: My Lords, as there is a good deal of contrary evidence about this subject in the medical profession—I ask your Lordships to read the editorial in the British Medical Journal of 13th December last—would it not be a good idea if the noble Lord conveyed to his right honourable friend the suggestion that it would be beneficial to have a medical inquiry into this issue to find out whether this monopoly and this restriction are any longer justified?
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: My Lords, I am sure that my honourable friend the Minister of Health will make a note of what the noble Lord has suggested.

NHS: Fund-Raising Proposals
3.16 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: 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 to what extent the proposals for fund-raising in the National Health Service as outlined in Circular HC/80/11th December 1980 conflict with assurances given during the Committee stage of the National Health Services Bill.
The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Baroness Young): My Lords, there is no conflict. The circular HC(80)11 merely elaborates on the detailed uses of the primary power, as discussed in debates in Committee and at other stages of the Bill.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that she made a statement during the proceedings on the Bill, that the circular giving the general outlines of the Government's intentions would be readily available to Members? Is she further aware that I personally was not aware of the issue of the circular until I received a letter from the National Council for Voluntary Organisations and, further, that it took two telephone calls and delay of a week before I received a copy, which was sent to me by special messenger? The other point is that I am involved with the League of Friends, as president, and there are many other active voluntary organisations, and the Government have said at all stages that the activities envisaged in the Bill would be of a comparatively minor character. How does this line up with something that was not stated at any stage, that there would be interest-free loans from the Government to help authorities; and, secondly, the use of professional organisers, all of which indicates large-scale efforts, when, at the moment, charity is doing a considerable amount of work and making efforts which are to the benefit of the health service?
Baroness Young: Yes, my Lords. I am sorry that the noble Lord should have had any delay in getting a copy of the circular which, of course, was sent to the appropriate health authorities. Should any noble Lord wish to have a copy, there are some available in the House today and I will certainly send one to anyone who would like a copy. On the other two points raised, there is no discrepancy between the information that was given when the Bill was debated and the circular that has been sent out. It is, I think, a rather elaborate term to talk about interest-free loans, when what is being suggested is that some members of health authorities may be willing to give their time to fund-raising activities. There will be no pressure put on anyone who does not want to do so, and health authorities may use some of their funds for this purpose, provided that they are all replaced at the end of the money-raising activity. This is, after all, what any voluntary organisation would do and it seems to us quite appropriate. Furthermore, if the noble Lord looks at the main circular he will see that the point about using professional fund-raisers occurs in the last sentence of paragraph 5, with suitable arrangements for that purpose. We see this activity as raising money at the margin of the health service, where a relatively small sum can make a lot of difference.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, will the noble Baroness now give an assurance to the House that there will be full consultation with charitable organisations? It is only at a very late stage that this has happened and there are still serious objections. There should have been consultation, but this happened only at the very last moment and there are still serious doubts about the effect of the Government's proposals on the activities of charitable organisations.
Baroness Young: Yes, my Lords. I can confirm that my honourable friend in another place is discussing the effect of this with voluntary organisations. Of course, we will take account of the points that have been raised this afternoon.
Lord Lovell-Davis: My Lords, would not the noble Baroness the Minister agree that the amended guidelines should prohibit the use of public funds in the form of interest-free loans and the working time of public administrators to support private fund raising agencies, since this is a principle to which this House has objected successfully throughout the life of the modern Civil Service?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord is being rather unrealistic about what will in fact happen on these occasions. Where an authority decides to use the powers now available—no authority has to use them if it does not want to—there could well be people who would like to give their services, or the authority could decide to make use of some of its money as a pump-priming exercise. Provided they keep, which they must do, to the law; that the money is put back so that there is no loss of money from public funds for this purpose, the effect of the exercise will be that extra money will be available for patients in the National Health Service. This must be a good thing. It is worth remembering that in the year 1979–80 as much as £20 million was raised from voluntary sources. It is not a new idea.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may for the convenience of your Lordships if I announce that dinner will be available this evening at the usual time. The Committee stage of the Wildlife and Countryside Bill will be adjourned at approximately seven o'clock for approximately one hour. The Second Reading of the European Assembly Elections Bill will be taken during this adjournment.

Licensing (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
Lord Gainford: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to amend the Licensing Act 1964 in relation to the revocation of special hours certificates. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Gainford.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

County of Kent Bill [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
Humberside Bill [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

House of Lords' Offices
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I beg to move that the Second Report from the Select Committee be agreed to.
Moved, That the Second Report from the Select Committee be agreed to.—(Lord Aberdare.)
The Report read as follows:
1. PARLIAMENT OFFICE: SELECT COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
The Committee have considered the staffing of the Select Committee on Science and Technology. The Committee recommend that there should be no immediate successor to the Select Committee on Unemployment and that, when it has reported, the clerk to that Committee should be assigned as a second clerk to the Select Committee on Science and Technology. In the event of an urgent requirement for a clerk to service an unexpected select committee, such a clerk should be drawn from either the European Communities Committee or the Science and Technology Committee.
2. REFRESHMENT DEPARTMENT
The Committee were informed that the Treasury had agreed to new financial assistance for the Refreshment Department and that the Civil Service Catering Organisation was conducting a review of the workings of the Department. The Committee welcomed the new financial support for the Department.
3. HOUSE OF LORDS BULLETIN
The Committee agreed a recommendation by the Administration Sub-Committee that the House of Lords should no longer publish a Weekly Information Bulletin when current Stationery Office contracts expire later this year.
4. TELEVISION DOCUMENTARY FILMS ON THE HOUSE OF LORDS
The Committee have considered a request from the BBC to produce four short documentary films on the House of Lords. They agreed this request in principle, subject to detailed consideration being given to it by the Administration Sub-committee who would have to agree appropriate conditions with the BBC. The Committee agreed, however, that no filming should be allowed in the Chamber when the House is sitting, nor in a Committee Room when a Committee is sitting.
5. PICTURE OF THE HOUSE IN SESSION
The Committee agreed in principle that it would be desirable to commission a further picture of the House in session. The Works of Art Sub-Committee were invited to consider the names of possible artists to undertake this commission.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

National Film Finance Corporation Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The Bill will consolidate into one Act the enactments relating to the constitution and functions of the National Film Finance Corporation, at present contained mainly in the Cinematograph Film Production (Special Loans) Act 1949, which established the corporation, the Films Act 1970, which enlarged its functions, and the Films Act 1980, which severed the financial links between the corporation and the Government.
The Bill is pure consolidation, without any amendments. If given a Second Reading it will, in the usual way, be referred to the joint committee. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

Film Levy Finance Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, this is a twin of the Bill to which your Lordships have just given a Second Reading. In this case the enactments consolidated
284
are those which provide for the imposition of a national levy on exhibitors of films, for the constitution of the British Film Fund Agency, and for the functions of the agency in relation to the proceeds of the levy. The Acts mainly concerned are the Cinematograph Films Act 1957, the Films Act 1970 and the Films Act 1980.
Like the previous Bill, this is pure consolidation and will equally, if given a Second Reading, be referred to the joint committee. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

Judicial Pensions Bill [H.L.]
Report received.

Weights and Measures (Northern Ireland) Order 1981
Viscount Long Viscount Long rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 13th January be approved.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this order consolidates the law relating to weights and measures. It makes no change of substance to the existing law but brings it together in one order.
It may help your Lordships to know that the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills considered the order on 4th February and reported that in their opinion it is pure consolidation and that there is no point to which the attention of Parliament should be drawn. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 13th January be approved.—(Viscount Long.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Legal Aid, Advice and Assistance (Northern Ireland) Order 1981
Viscount Long Viscount Long rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 28th January be approved.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this order consolidates the law relating to legal aid, advice and assistance. The Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills considered the order on 4th February and reported that in their opinion it is pure consolidation, and that there is no point to which the attention of Parliament should be drawn. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 28th January be approved.—(Viscount Long.)
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, this would seem to be an extremely helpful order. Can the noble Viscount say whether there is yet a Great Britain equivalent to it? Perhaps I should be addressing this query to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. If the information is not immediately available, perhaps I may be communicated with.
Viscount Long: My Lords, I shall be most happy to do so after I have communicated with my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I will take note of what the noble and learned Lord has said and give him a reply.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Wildlife and Countryside Bill [H.L.]
3.28 p.m
The Earl of Avon: 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.—(The Earl of Avon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[THE LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
The Chairman of Committees: The first amendment that I have to call is a manuscript amendment, No. 374A, in substitution for Amendments Nos. 375, 398, 402 and 403.
Lord Melchett Lord Melchett moved Amendment No. 374A:
Before Clause 26, insert the following new clause:
("Orders designating certain areas of special scientific interest
.—(1) In the case of any land which is designated by the Nature Conservancy Council as a Site of Special Scientific Interest under section 23 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 the Secretary of State shall, after consultation with the Nature Conservancy Council, by order apply subsection (2) to that land; and the provisions of Schedule 10 shall have effect as to the making, confirmation and coming into operation of orders under this section. An order made under this section may be amended or revoked by a subsequent order so made.
(2) The owner or occupier of any land to which this subsection applies shall not carry out on it any operation appearing to the Secretary of State to be likely to destroy or damage its flora, fauna, or geological or physiographical features and specified in the order applying this subsection to the land, or cause or permit the carrying out of such an operation, unless—

(a) one of them has, after the commencement date, given the Council notice of a proposal to carry out the operation, specifying its nature and the land on which it is proposed to carry it out; and

(b) one of the conditions specified in subsection (3) is fulfilled.

(3) The said conditions are—

(a) that the operation is carried out with the Council's written consent;

(b) that the operation is carried out in accordance with the terms of an agreement under section 16 of the 1949 Act or section 15 of the 1968 Act.

(4) A person who, without reasonable excuse, contravenes subsection (2) shall be liable—

(a) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum;

(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or a fine or both.

(5) It is a reasonable excuse in any event for a person to carry out an operation if—

(a) the operation was authorised by a planning permission granted on an application under Part III of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 or Part III of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972; or

(b) the operation was an emergency operation particulars of which (including details of the emergency) were notified to the Council as soon as practicable after the commencement of the operation.").

The noble Lord said: I beg to move manuscript Amendment No. 374A. I know that it is customary for manuscript amendments to be read in full when they are moved in this way, but I hope that noble Lords will excuse me from that rather onerous task if I briefly explain how it comes about that I am moving a manuscript amendment.
What happened was that late last night somebody noticed that the Marshalled List which we have been working from since the amendments were first marshalled had the first three amendments which we were to deal with today in the wrong order. That is why the Fifth Marshalled List has the amendments out of numerical order, Amendments Nos. 376 and 376A coming before my Amendment No. 375. In order to avoid everybody having to change the order of proceedings which we were prepared for, in particular those noble Lords whose amendments were accepted—namely, the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, the noble Earl, Lord Avon, on behalf of the Government, my noble friend Lady David and the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, who have their names to Amendment No. 375—it was agreed that I should move this manuscript amendment, which has the effect of altering Clause 26 as it would be altered if my Amendment No. 375 and the amendments consequential on it, which were Nos. 398, 402 and 403, were carried. In other words, the purpose of the manuscript amendment (for which I apologise to your Lordships) was that the Marshalled List was altered very late in the day, but none of us knew until rather late this morning, and it was felt to be simpler for everyone concerned if we could keep to the order that we were all expecting.
Having explained that technicality, I should like to move on to explain the purpose of these amendments. We now start Part II of this Bill and I should like to say a brief word about the importance of wildlife habitats before turning to the effect of the amendment. In Part I of the Bill, which we have now debated in your Lordships' Committee for a number of days—more days than most of us care to remember, I suspect we have taken a number of steps to stop the killing of protected and rare birds and animals. We have taken various steps to prevent rare birds and animals being killed by all sorts of different means—bows and crossbows and catapaults were under consideration. We have taken steps to protect the structures and the places used by wild animals for protection or for shelter, and in Part I of the Bill we have taken a number of other steps to protect particular species and plants. But without the adequate protection of habitats where wild animals live and breed and feed none of the measures in Part I of the Bill will achieve the objects which we all hope they will achieve. Without the protection of habitats where wild animals live this Bill is in effect of little value, at least so far as Part I is concerned.
I think there is fairly widespread agreement—and certainly in the weeks leading up to our debates on Part II today from a number of sources there has been widespread agreement—about the importance of taking further steps in addition to those already included in the Bill to protect habitats. In a recent leading article in The Times it was pointed out that it is changes in farming itself which have done the damage to sites of

287
special scientific interest. The leading article goes on to say:
"At present these sites are being destroyed at a frightening rate".
In a speech last year on 25th November, the Minister, Mr. Monro, said:
"In September last year"—
that is, 1979—
"I signed the Convention on the conservation of European wildlife and natural habitats in Berne. This accepted a fundamental obligation to safeguard natural habitats".
Later in the same speech the Minister went on to explain how the provisions currently in the Bill would operate. Having, incidentally, in the previous paragraph in his speech, acknowledged that the otter in Scotland was being protected under this Bill, something which was welcomed on all sides of the House, the Minister went on to say that the most likely reasons for the otter's decline were the depredations to its river habitats; but he then went on in the very next paragraph, explaining how this Bill would protect habitats, to say that there would be new measures to protect particularly important habitats, but, he said:
"These will only be applied to a comparatively small number of sites".
I had come today, as no doubt had many other noble Lords, prepared to talk about a rate of loss of sites of special scientific interest of about 4 per cent. or 5 per cent. a year. I even had a graph which somebody kindly prepared for me, which showed that, at that rate of loss, by the year 2000 we should have lost over half of the existing sites of special scientific interest. But that information—and I hope a lot of your Lordships' prepared speeches, and I certainly hope the Government's prepared response to these amendments—is now redundant, because yesterday the Nature Conservancy Council, the Government's official advisers on nature conservation, announced that in a survey last year they had found that the rate of loss and damage to sites of special scientific interest was dramatically and appallingly higher than anyone had previously suspected.
We knew, when people spoke of an average loss or damage of 4 per cent. a year, that things were very bad and that that average hid some much worse figures in particular counties. Certainly in Norfolk, where I farm and live, our experience was that the rate of loss was a good deal higher than 4 per cent. in recent years; but the NCC's survey in 1980, for which they currently have the results for 20 counties in England, shows a rate of loss or damage on average of 10 per cent. Ten per cent. of the sites of special scientific interest in this country in 1980 were seriously damaged or lost, in the words of the NCC and, most dramatically, in Dorset 32 per cent. of the sites of special scientific interest—one-third—were seriously damaged or lost. The figure in Northamptonshire was 17 per cent.
That rate of damage to the cream, the top layer, the most important, the most significant nature conservation sites in this country is a catastrophe. It is appalling. I do not think anybody was aware that this was going on to such an extent. The Nature Conservancy Council are, first, to be congratulated on doing this survey work and producing it in time for it to be
288
considered by your Lordships when we debate Part II; and, secondly, they are to be congratulated for saying as firmly as they have done that the provisions which the Government are proposing in this Part do not go far enough. Now that we have the information which the NCC released yesterday we can see why that is so.
This is not something which happened last year or which is decelerating, or anything of that sort. There are two incidents which are actually occurring at the moment which will give noble Lords an idea of the problem. Sixty acres of a 450-acre Grade 1 site of special scientific interest at Horton Common in Dorset has already been destroyed. It is still in fact being ploughed at this moment. That is in an area where half the heathlands in Dorset, intact in 1960, have now been destroyed and most of what is left of the Dorset heaths, which have suffered a massive decline since the war, is severely fragmented. Horton Common, the one that is currently being ploughed up, is one of the few remaining areas large enough to support viable populations of the wildlife which depend on heathland, such as the silver-studded blue butterfly, the Dartford warbler, the smooth snake and the sand lizard. To some of these species your Lordships have given what I would call nominal protection in Part I of the Bill, but unless we get Part II right those species will disappear.
Also in Dorset, another Grade I—top grade—site of special scientific interest at Slepe heath, on which the Nature Conservancy Council were negotiating to make a national nature reserve, is going under the plough and is to be planted with conifers. By a somewhat ironic chance the Nature Conservancy Council's regional office is a couple of hundred yards away from that site.
The figures that the Nature Conservancy Council have revealed are a national and international scandal. The Minister said at the Berne Convention that it implied a fundamental obligation to safeguard natural habitats. There is no hope of carrying out this international obligation without immediately stopping the catastrophic destruction of our sites of scientific interest; and that is what this series of amendments would do. They would ensure that an order-making power which is provided in the Bill would be applied to all sites of special scientific interest after the Minister had consulted with the Nature Conservancy Council. Without a measure of that sort in this Bill I believe that we shall have wasted the many long hours that we have spent on Part I, and we shall have no hope of stopping what I have called the catastrophic destruction of sites of special scientific interest. I beg to move.
Viscount Thurso: The Nature Conservancy Council are remarkably good at feeding to the media such statistics as they feel may help their case. They did it to me not so very long ago, by feeding a story to the media about a site of special scientific interest which lies upon my land at a time when it was still being considered under appeal procedure by a forestry advisory committee; it was still in the process of appeal procedure and about to come before the Secretary of State. I feel that one cannot let this spate of statistics go by without some comment, because I have an interest in this.

289
Upon land which I own or manage on behalf of members of my family I have no fewer than eight sites of special scientific interest, one of which is about 6,500 acres in extent. On my own land 30 per cent. of the land which I own consists of sites of special scientific interest. If I put together the area occupied by sites of special scientific interest upon land I manage, it is something like 0·2 per cent. of all the sites of special scientific interest in the British Isles, in number that is, not necessarily in area—although it may be quite high in area, having one site which is 6,500 acres in extent. This site of 6,500 acres is in fact part of a larger site of 13,500 acres in extent, affecting two of my neighbours as well, and it is designed to preserve 1,000 acres of bog.
If we are to preserve habitats, there is one habitat in which I am extremely interested; that is, the habitat of the native Highlander in Scotland. There is a feeling very much abroad in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland that proper development and proper land use are being inhibited by the imposition of the title of sites of special scientific interest upon land without any questioning before bodies which are accountable publicly or have to budget publicly for their actions.
In looking at these amendments which we shall be considering from now on, and when we come later to an amendment which I shall move myself, I think that we should bear in mind that sites of special scientific interest have never been proved ever by public debate. The idea of a site of special scientific interest was that the Nature Conservancy Council would look at land which it considered might be of special scientific interest, and would warn planning authorities that a special scientific interest might exist, in case somebody desired to carry out a development upon it. They are not nature reserves. If we want to protect the habitats of special flowers, plants, birds, animals, rocks or whatever, we must create nature reserves; we must do the thing properly. We must go for co-operation with the people who have to live and work and have their being in these areas. In the creation of a site of special scientific interest nobody asks permission to walk upon your land to look for it; nobody tells you about it until it has been so declared by the Nature Conservancy Council—and by that time there is no appeal against it.
I feel we must be exceedingly careful as to how we deal with the status of sites of special scientific interest. This is not to say that I am in any way against the preservation of habitat. I believe this to be truly important and I believe that it will only be successful if it is done with the full co-operation of the people who live upon the land to be so protected. I feel that we must in this Bill see that we create a climate in which there will be understanding and co-operation, and not a climate in which people sneak upon your land, declare that you may no longer do something to which you have a right, declare things about your land which devalue it in cash terms, and then create this situation against which you have no appeal. We must look exceedingly carefully at these amendments. It is not just a simple way of protecting habitats. To protect habitats we must get the real and genuine co-operation of the people who live in the country areas, and this the Nature Conservancy Council are not doing today.
The Earl of Avon: The aim of the amendment is to require owners or occupiers of land which forms part of a site of special scientific interest to notify the Nature Conservancy Council of any operation specified by an order made by the Secretary of State. Currently more than 3,800 sites would be involved. As your Lordships will be aware, the Government's proposals on Clause 26 encompass a wide range of powers, including substantial cost implications for the most threatened and important of these areas of special scientific interest which have been identified by the Nature Conservative Council—I mean, Conservancy Council—as requiring super protection. To apply this concept of super protection to all the 3,800 or more sites of special scientific interest would be a draconian measure. It would also mean that both the physical and financial resources of the Nature Conservancy Council were so strained that the whole object of the Government's intentions might well be jeopardised.
In effect, the result could simply be that, with a considerable waste of staff effort and bureaucracy, protection would effectively be offered only to those most threatened and important, which is precisely what our proposals set out to do without the staff increase and bureaucracy. There is absolutely no point, by passing this amendment, in giving the impression that all sites of special scientific interest will be given the full protection offered under this clause. The result would simply be the giving of a false impression to those throughout the country who could expect such an amendment to be fully honoured in practice, and this the Government do not think would be the case.
The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, produced some statistics, on which the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, commented. We, of course, have also seen these statistics provided yesterday by the NCC. They refer, I must say at once, to damage on sites of special scientific interest and not "of". We have as a Government not yet had time to analyse the actual effect, in terms of percentages, of losses of sites of special scientific interest or land area. I think it would be premature to comment further on these figures before we have analysed them further. The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, and we ourselves all wish to safeguard natural habitats. What we feel about it is that there is a difference of degree in the measures which need to be taken.
I would correct one impression that the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, gave which is that the Nature Conservancy Council sneaks up on people. That is an unfair remark, if I may say so. Wherever possible, they do seek permission.
Viscount Thurso: May I tell the noble Earl that they have never yet asked me for permission before declaring a site of special scientific interest.
The Earl of Avon: I am sorry to hear that. As we are coming to this question later in the debate, I hope the noble Viscount will be pleased by what we are proposing.
If I may return to the amendment, another more minor reason for seeking its rejection lies in something which we believe is incorrect. It is incorrect to refer to land "designated by" the Nature Conservancy Council as a site of special scientific interest. Land is

291
not designated by the Nature Conservancy Council. What happens is that local planning authorities are notified by the NCC of land which for the time being is not managed as a nature reserve but is of special interest by reason of its flora, fauna, or geological or physiographical features. These sites are commonly known as sites of special scientific interest, but that is not actually a statutory expression.
I hope that your Lordships will not feel carried away by the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, as regards this particular amendment. We in the Government believe—and we shall explain why in a little more detail when we come to later amendments—that the policy in Part II is the correct policy. I very much hope that this amendment will not be accepted.
Lord Melchett: The noble Earl, in a slip of the tongue, which he corrected, referred to the Nature Conservancy Council as the Nature Conservative Council. I do not think that that is an unfair description as far as many of the voluntary organisations in this country are concerned. They have tended to look upon the Nature Conservancy Council as taking a very conservative line in these matters. It has been cautious and it has in many areas taken enormous trouble—most of the voluntary organisations would say far too much trouble—to try to reach agreement with landowners over the designation of sites of special scientific interest. Often that procedure has led to those sites being destroyed while the negotiations were still going on. That is in total contrast to what the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, had to say about his own experience. In all the cases that I have heard of over the past few years the complete reverse has been the case—the Nature Conservancy Council has delayed designating sites, while destruction has gone on under its nose, in an attempt to reach a compromise or agreement.
I would simply say to those who have suggested that it is a compromise and agreement that are wanted, that that is the system that operates at the moment. The Nature Conservancy Council and nobody else has any legal powers to stop this rate of change. Compromise, agreement, getting on with landowners and not upsetting anybody is the order of the day at the moment. It is under that system that we have lost sites of special scientific interest, at the rate last year of 10 per cent. If that is the system which noble Lords think so marvellous then they must explain those figures or say that they do not mind them, that they are quite happy, and that that rate of loss does not matter to them. I cannot believe that that would be seriously suggested.
The noble Earl on the Government Front Bench said that this amendment was a draconian measure. I suggest that when the Government have had time to study the Nature Conservancy Council's figures they will come to realise that draconian measures are what are needed in the face of these massive losses. The noble Earl said that there was a difference between us in the degree of how far we wanted to go in the Bill. There may have been a difference in degree before yesterday, but now that we know that the rate of loss is so much more serious than we ever expected, I would hope that the Government would reconsider
292
their attitude and—if they want seriously to honour the Berne Convention—take steps to protect all sites of special scientific interest.
The noble Earl has pointed out one technical error in the amendment. We have a number of other amendments down to this clause which I hope the Government might be able to respond to a little more favourably than they are obviously prepared to respond to my amendment. I intend to come back to this matter at the Report stage unless the Bill is amended substantially in the meantime or unless the Government change their mind, as I hope they will, when they have had a chance to look at the Nature Conservancy Council's advice to them. It is scientific advice. The Nature Conservancy Council's figures, as I understand it, are not checked by the Government. The Nature Conservancy Council offers scientific advice to the Government and the Government can accept it. That is the advice they have been given. I hope that when they have had a chance to look at it they might be prepared to come a little nearer to what I am proposing in my amendment. For the time being, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 26 [Orders designating certain areas of special scientific interest]:
3.54 p.m.
Lord Craigton Lord Craigton moved Amendment No. 376:
Page 23, line 37, at beginning insert—
("(A1) The Nature Conservancy Council shall serve on every owner and occupier of any land which in the opinion of the Council is of special interest by reason of its flora, fauna, or geological or physiographical features a notice specifying—

(a) the nature of that special interest; and

(b) any operations appearing to the Council to be likely to destroy or damage such interest;

and the notice shall have effect as from the day on which it is served.").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 376 and, with the approval of the Committee, I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 379, 384, 386, 390, 391, 394, 397, 399, 404, 407, 413, 415, 417 to 420 and 423. My noble friend Lord Buxton of Alsa apologises to the Committee that he is not present. He is in the Falkland Islands, where he has a long-established appointment, and he has left me to move for him the amendment which bears both our names. I have listened to the two Front Bench speeches and I hope that on this occasion I have, as it were, a middle way that will be acceptable to the Minister.
I shall not repeat the points made so admirably by the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, about the condition and the need at the present time. It was only this morning that I, too, learnt to my horror that sites of special scientific interest are being destroyed not, as I thought, at a rate of 4 per cent.—which is bad enough—but at an estimated 10 per cent. I sympathise with the Minister. Of course he cannot accept without inquiry the correctness of those figures. However I am quite sure that it will not be 4 per cent. but much nearer 10 per cent., if the figures prove to be at all accurate. In the light of that information, Part II of the Bill is now clearly inadequate. I am glad that we have received the bad news in time to do something this afternoon to try to stop the rot.
I shall illustrate my amendments in two ways: first, I shall show how, if they are accepted, the new procedure would work; and secondly, I shall explain the effect of and reason for some of the more substantial amendments that are involved. Under the new procedure, all owner-occupiers are to be notified that some land under their control is an SSSI and that certain specified operations might cause damage to the heritage value of that land. That is a long-felt want which farmers and all concerned will appreciate. This is not the first time that we have heard it said in this House that farmers do not know enough about the SSSIs on their own land. This time, if my amendment is accepted, they will know all about them officially.
Supposing, having had a notice, the owner wishes to undertake an operation that would cause damage to his site. He will have been told what would cause damage in the notice. His plans will have been drawn up on the understanding that implementation may be delayed. Indeed, he may have been discouraged from developing his plans because of the constraints involved in the notification process or because he had no wish to damage the national heritage. In the end he notifies the NCC of his intention. The NCC considers the implication and chooses to offer a negotiated agreement. It is hoped that such agreements will be commonplace and that most problems will be solved at this stage. Perhaps, however, negotiations drag on and on and it becomes apparent that no agreement to manage the area for conservation can be reached. In the light of that, the NCC may make an application to the Secretary of State for an order prohibiting the intended operation. The Secretary of State will deliberate and may decide to make the order under Schedule 10. What happens then? The owner may take no further action. He may say: "It is not worth my while". He may agree to a management arrangement or he may offer to sell the land to the NCC. In all cases, Clause 27 compensation applies. That is the plan.
How do the amendments achieve that moderate and workable solution while retaining so much of the present Clause 26? My Amendment No. 376, enabling the NCC to advise all owners, is new and very much overdue. Amendment No. 379 deletes the opinion of the Secretary of State because SSSIs are decided by the Nature Conservancy Council under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Acts. The present provision in the Bill limiting just a few sites to special protection is one of the most objectionable to all shades of conservation opinion and should be done away with. The Minister's new amendment in changing "national interest" to "national importance" seems to be even further restrictive than the Bill as printed. The conservation world considers that this is probably the most important point to be dealt with since the Bill was printed.
The six amendments, Nos. 384 to 397, provide for the new situation in subsection (1). In Amendment No. 399 the obligation on the Nature Conservancy Council to decide whether or not the farmer can go ahead and alter an SSSI is reduced from three months to four weeks. That will be welcomed by the farming community and I am told that there are good agricultural reasons for this.
I am sure that the new subsection (5), which is
294
Amendment No. 404, is an improvement on the present one. With our wording, if an agreement is hanging fire, the Nature Conservancy Council can get an order made by the Secretary of State to prohibit work on a permanent basis, with compensation. But the order can be revoked. Under the present subsection (5) if the agreement is hanging fire, the only recourse is compulsory purchase or to let the site be destroyed. Amendment No. 407 is consequential, although if it is agreed I am not happy about the drafting.
Amendment No. 413 is very worth while. We suggest that whatever is worth retaining on an SSSI should become a local land charge. Without such a provision a new occupier would not be bound by the Nature Conservancy Council notice unless the NCC wrote to him again. This provision is very necessary because there are cases where a new occupant has done work—perhaps drainage—on an SSSI for which the previous owner has been refused grant application. Furthermore, much administrative work would be saved. The last six amendments are consequential. I have made my case. I think that we have a moderate, middle way approach, and I very much hope that the Minister will say that he can accept these amendments, or accept this approach in principle and include it as an amendment at the Report stage. I beg to move.
Lord Middleton: I share the concern of many noble Lords, that existing site protection may not be effective in preserving the dwindling number of places that provide habitats for wildlife species. Their concern is based on much knowledge and expertise—especially that of my noble friend Lord Craigton—and also on the amount of damage that is already reported to have taken place in declared sites. That some damage has been done is not in dispute. Reluctantly I have to support the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, in saying that a contributory cause has, in many cases, been the failure of the Nature Conservancy Council to provide information as to the nature of the conservation interest in many sites. Therefore, I welcome the first of my noble friend's series of amendments for what it will do to rectify that situation.
I do not like his other amendments, for reasons which I shall explain. It is now being suggested—and we have heard this dreadful story from the noble Lord, Lord Melchett—that 10 per cent. of SSSIs are being damaged each year. On the face of it, these figures are appalling. But when we look into actual cases of alleged damage, the issues, the reasons and the responsibilities are never clear-cut. I mentioned the doubts that arise in one's mind when one delves, even superficially as I have done, into what precise damage is being done to sites; not in order to minimise the danger to habitats but to shine, as it were, an amber light before we get carried away (as my noble friend Lord Craigton would have us do) into enlarging the scope of very restrictive legislation which creates new criminal offences. That is just what the Government's Clause 26 does. I make no complaint about it. It enables the Secretary of State to make an order in respect of any land where certain criteria apply. These criteria are pretty wide, either as drafted or if the wording is altered, as it probably will be in a later amendment.

295
Restrictions of future use of the land by owners and occupiers will be set out in the order. Any contravention will be an offence, carrying penalties of up to two years in prison. This is stern stuff, and rightly so. But is it desirable or practical automatically to extend here and now this new statutory procedure to all 3,816 sites?—as, broadly, would be the effect of my noble friend's amendment and also that of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, to which we shall come later.
One difficulty is that the Nature Conservancy Council may well have been over-enthusiastic in the past about designation. I know that my noble friend Lord Avon does not like the word "designation", but he knows what I mean. The NCC appears to acknowledge this by the process of review which is now taking place. Therefore, the label, "SSSI" already may not be appropriate to all our existing sites. I am sure that the desire to provide better and wider protection is prompted by the limited number of Clause 26 orders proposed for selection by the Government and also by the unsatisfactory current designation procedure. As to the limited number proposed, I can very well understand the Government's policy, which was explained to us just now by my noble friend Lord Avon. There are just not sufficient resources available to apply more widely the Clause 26 order procedure. When we consider the manpower and the financial requirements that would be needed, the sheer volume of public inquiries, management agreements, compensation payments, compulsory purchases, and so on would be overwhelming. The Government's way must surely be the only practical way forward.
Once Clause 26 is enacted in its present form, or near to its present form, I wonder whether there will be any need for restrictive legislation to cover all sites, as is envisaged by my noble friend Lord Craigton. As resources become available it would be perfectly possible for the Secretary of State to cover more sites by Clause 26 orders. The very fact that the power is there would be a very useful and, I think, effective back-up where any site may be under threat. In my view, this back-up power, coupled with better designation procedure, should be enough to be effective in securing the degree of protection which we all want to see.
As regards NCC procedure, I am not convinced that it is necessary to provide for it in the Bill, as the first amendment of my noble friend would do. I believe that it could be done administratively. But however it is done, owners and occupiers must be told—and I think that this is the point raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso—specifically and clearly what is being protected and what operations would damage the site. No doubt they will also be told about Section 26 of the 1981 Act, as it will be, lurking in the background. I am sure that the provision of information will go a long way towards ensuring willing co-operation from owners and farmers. I am sure that the owners' and farmers' organisations will do everything in their power to assist, educate and encourage their members, who are very much more conservation-minded that than they are given credit for. That kind of improved practice by the NCC, coupled with the creation of as many Clause 26 orders
296
as can be coped with, would constitute a more realistic and practical conservation programme than is proposed in this group of amendments. With the possible exception of Amendment No. 376, I hope that the Government will resist my noble friend's group of amendments creating super-special sites and extending the Clause 26 procedure to all the others. I think that the Government have it about right and deserve the Committee's support. That I shall certainly give, if necessary, if it comes to a vote.
Lord Underhill: As reference has been made to an amendment in my name, I wonder whether it might be convenient if I speak to that amendment during this debate in order to avoid going over the ground on two or three occasions. The important point about Amendment No. 377 is that it brings in the national nature reserves, which none of the other amendments does. I am sorry that I was not present to hear my noble friend Lord Melchett move his amendment, but I was engaged in a Committee upstairs. From what I have heard, I think that my noble friend undoubtedly explained—and I think that everyone accepts it—the threat that there is to a great number of SSSIs which are designated by the Nature Conservancy Council.
But we also want to bring in the question of the NNRs. The Nature Conservancy Council has said that quite a number of these are at risk. According to the NCC, half of the 167 nature reserves will be at risk within the next 10 years—and we may not get another Wildlife and Countryside Bill before that expires—and 15 per cent. are under imminent threat. We have to keep in mind that only 35 of the reserves are owned by the NCC and therefore fairly safe.
On Second Reading the noble Earl, Lord Avon, was able to assure the House that the Government only had in mind dealing with some 40 to 50 SSSI sites, and yet the figure was given of a total of 3,816. So we have the situation where only some 1 per cent. of the sites are going to be given adequate protection. I am sure, as I said on Second Reading, that there is absolutely no reason whatever why this country should not give the same consideration to the heritage of our wildlife as we do to the heritage of our buildings. Moreover, in a way it is more serious because once you damage the wildlife habitat that has been built up over centuries, you and I will not see them replaced, and maybe many generations will not see them replaced. What we are discussing is of the greatest importance.
Amendment No. 377 says that all sites, SSSIs and NNRs, must be brought within the proposed protection of subsection (2) of this clause. While I should prefer the amendment which we shall move in my name, No. 377, I can understand and appreciate the approach made in the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Craigton. It is a great improvement on the Bill in so far as all sites designated by the NCC as of special interest shall have the relevant notice served on them in the first instance. Where the amendment does not go far enough is because any subsequent action will depend upon the Secretary of State, though admittedly after consultation with the NCC. But if the Minister repeats today what was said on Second Reading—that the Government have in mind only some 40 to 50 sites—then we have something over

297
3,700 SSSIs which are not in here as well as the balance of the NNRs which are not owned by the NCC itself. The Government amendment is only a slight improvement, if that, upon the dubious proposal in the Bill.
The points of Amendment No. 377 are, first, that all sites are brought within the desired protection. That is, all SSSIs and all NNRs which are designated as such by the Nature Conservancy Council will be brought within the provision of subsection (2). The noble Earl said that we obviously could not deal with all the 3,816 sites, but that will be covered by the second part of the amendment, which provides that the Secretary of State may, after he has had consultation with the NCC, exempt from action under subsection (2) any areas of land which he feels do not come under the three criteria laid down.
Therefore, the important part of the amendment is that in the first instance there will be no argument at all: every single SSSI and every single NNR will come within the protection of subsection (2) unless the Secretary of State considers that any one of the three criteria does not obtain, and that will be agreed after consultation with the NCC. Therefore, I believe that Amendment No. 377 is the one which gives the greater protection, bearing in mind what I have said already—that if we miss the opportunity in this Bill I doubt whether I shall be speaking to your Lordships trying to move an amendment to a future Bill that comes up some decades ahead.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Renton: The noble Lord, Lord Underhill—and I am sure all your Lordships agreed with him—said that this was perhaps the most important clause in the Bill. It is indeed so, because arrangements which have existed since the 1949 Act and which attempted to protect the habitat have completely broken down. We have had a lot of evidence about that. I do not wish to add any examples except two rather telling ones from my former constituency of Huntingdonshire, because I know it so well. There, in Huntingdonshire, 88 per cent. of all hedgerows have been destroyed in the past 30 years. That must have had a tremendous effect on the habitat of wildlife and small birds. Another example is that 31 years ago we had a wood at the side of a fen where the swallowtail butterfly flourished. But an over-zealous river authority decided to lower the level of the water table, and that destroyed the vegetation on which the swallowtail butterfly depended and we have never had it since. Something must be done.
We are on the fifth day of Committee but I hope nevertheless that we shall take a bit of time to try to get this right. The Government's purpose is clearly expressed in subsection (1), but clearly from the remaining subsections there are anxieties on both sides of the fence both the owner-occupers and the preservationists, and the RSPB, of which I happen to be a member—about the way in which the remaining parts of the Government's clause will work.
I was gratified to hear my noble friend Lord Middleton say that he at any rate supported Amendment No. 376 moved by my noble friend Lord Craigton. That clearly must be right because we ought to give the owners and occupiers the earliest opportunity of being brought into the picture, of making representations
298
and so on, instead of the Nature Conservancy Council, splendid people though they are, starting off by simply making an order and then, without the owner-occupier really getting seized of the matter, perhaps the thing could have gone too far. Therefore, I should have thought that Amendment No. 376 must commend itself to your Lordships.
I do not, however, agree entirely with my noble friend Lord Middleton when he tends to accept the view that to deal somehow with the 3,800 existing sites, which we are told are rapidly being destroyed, would be a draconian thing to do. Somehow we need to have those sites studied further. With those that are worth keeping, preserving, doing something with, bringing within the new procedure, that should be done.
Perhaps it is my own fault, but I have not picked up exactly what the Government's attitude is with regard to dovetailing the existing fact of those 3,800 sites with their proposals for declaring future sites to be of scientific interest in future. But this somehow has to be done. We cannot just say, "No, we will neglect the existing sites, and whether we start again or not does not very much matter". We have to build on what is there while giving a good opportunity to the owners and occupiers.
I very much fear that, taking the Bill as a whole, and this clause in particular, we are going to place an enormous administrative burden on the Nature Conservancy Council. It is a burden which they will no doubt willingly try to bear, but to the extent that we make it obligatory for them to have dealings or consultations at an early stage with those who are going to be affected by their decisions, then we shall indeed be lightening their task. It is for that reason that I hope that your Lordships will give sympathetic attention to all of the amendments moved by my noble friend Lord Craigton, although it may be that there will be disagreement on some points of detail in them.
Baroness White: I was deeply disappointed by the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Avon, because he did not seem to appreciate the full gravity of the position in relation to sites which have, after all, been examined with some thoroughness by the Nature Conservancy Council. There can of course always be differences of view as to the relative significance of various factors, but I will quote from a speech made in the other place last June by a Junior Minister at the Welsh Office because in Wales we have at the moment an important exercise on the Berwyns where the Nature Conservancy Council wishes—we all tend to use the word "designate" because it comes readily to the lips—to designate a major site of special scientific interest. The colleague of the noble Earl in the other place said:
"it is important that right honourable and honourable Members should know that the council"—
the Nature Conservancy Council—
"does not lightly undertake the scheduling of an area of land as a site of special interest. The council has laid down a very strict and comprehensive set of procedures for its officials to follow. They are designed to prove conclusively the scientific value of the area under consideration, and its officials are required to be meticulous in their observation of those rules".—(Official Report, Commons, 16/6/80; col. 1310.)
That I believe to be true. There may always be exceptions, but knowing with some intimacy the work

299
of the Nature Conservancy Council, at least in the Principality of Wales, I would support that as a general description.
I warmly support the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, because it is totally undesirable that anyone should suddenly wake up, so to speak, to find he has a designated site on his land. I cannot understand how that ever occurred, but I accept what the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, and others have said, and it has arisen in the area in Wales I have described, the Berwyn Hills. On the other hand, one must put the other side of the picture, and I take the liberty of again quoting from the speech of the Welsh Minister in another place when he said in relation to this exercise:
I am assured that its officials have made regular personal contact with more than 90 per cent. of those … in the area … who are likely to be affected. A small percentage have, however, steadfastly refused to discuss any part of the matter".—(Col. 1311).
That is one of the difficulties we face—the fact that there is always the minority, the odd man out, the awkward customer.
We had an instance reported in The Times this week of the intention of Mid-Suffolk District Council to put a tree preservation order on a woodland of centuries' growth, but the gentleman concerned, the farmer or landowner, said, "This land is mine and I can do what I like with it", and he brought in the chain saws on Sunday afternoon and cut the lot down. We know that the great majority of farmers and landowners are conservationists at heart; they are the closest to nature of anyone you can find. But there is always the person who spoils the game, and that is why we must have legislation, regulations and so on.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: The noble Baroness has quoted a case about which I know nothing. Nor do I suspect she knows the details of this farmer in Suffolk. She is talking about having statutory controls to stop that. In that case they had them but they did not work. I am absolutely in agreement with her in suggesting that what he did was terrible, but the controls did not stop him, did they?
Baroness White: Because the controls were applied too late; the order was available on Monday afternoon and he cut everything down on Sunday. That happened because the persons in the locality had not woken up quickly enough to the possible threat to this area of woodland, and it had not of course been designated as a site of special scientific interest. Had it been, then conceivably even he might have recognised the situation and not carried out the destruction for which he was responsible.
I repeat, the vast majority of such situations can be settled by negotiation and discussion, by some give and take, and we in the Principality are trying very hard indeed to secure the acceptance of this concept by a bringing together under what is called the Loft-house pattern—after the name of Mr. Lofthouse who will be well known to some of your Lordships, who was called in for consultation on the Berwyns. That involves bringing together the Forestry Commission, the Ministry of Agriculture (which in our case is the Welsh Office Agricultural Division) and the Nature
300
Conservancy Council, and discussing the matter on a tripartite basis to try to get rational agreement on land use; and sites of special scientific interest are one example of intelligent and concerned land use.
I was also disappointed at the attitude of the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, and I would remind him that I am a member of the Country Landowners' Association and a member of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, and I hope he is too. His attitude is that we can say, "We can catch up later on. We do not have the resources to do a thorough job now, but as resources become available we will catch up". We cannot catch up later on in the majority of these sites of scientific interest. If you destroy a raised bog, you destroy it; you cannot put it back. If you plough up a chalk downland, you destroy the habitats of all the creatures great and small on which this noble House spent so many hours when discussing Part I. It is pointless to have wasted our time on Part I if we do not have adequate provisions under Part II and I hope noble Lords in all parts of the Committee appreciate that.
That is why I find attractive the proposal of my noble friend Lord Underhill, and we want to be sensible about this. Obviously it does not mean we can rush out and do things with, say, 3,800 sites next week. On the other hand, the concept of the Government—that we can do anything approaching meeting our responsibilities to future generations by selecting some 40 or 50 super special sites—is incredible. For anybody with any real sense of the natural inheritance of which we in this country have been so proud (think of our natural history writers, of Gilbert White's Selborne, Richard Jefferies and the rest of them on whom some of us were brought up) to suppose that by selecting 40 or 50 special sites we shall save our British natural heritage is really flabbergasting. How, by saying that, can any responsible Government really believe they are doing their job properly? They cannot.
Therefore, as I say, I am very much in favour of the amendments standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, particularly his proposals aimed at trying to get reasonable co-operation. As I say, in 95 per cent, of cases, if the matter is properly discussed and explained, co-operation can be secured. I say that with a proviso relating to where someone is prevented from carrying out operations. I know this is a difficult point, but there are compensation arrangements. The amount of compensation is so derisory at present that unless one can make certain that there is some rationality—that has been one of the great weaknesses of the NCC in the past—unless one can be sensible and responsible, the negotiations will be much more difficult; and that I grant.
I believe that this is a great occasion for this noble House to rise to. As the discussions on Part I of the Bill dramatically indicated, we have among our Members many noble Lords who are very knowledgeable indeed about our natural heritage. I am sure that the great majority of noble Lords in all parts of the Chamber, whether they be landowners, farmers, or merely those who love the beautiful things that are still left, will want to rise to this occasion. This is probably the most important part of the Bill. There are others, but I believe that Part II is what really matters.

301
Therefore, I can only hope that we shall have a far more imaginative response from Her Majesty's Government than has so far been indicated. I hope, too, that those, like the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, who speak for the country landowners will recognise that there are other interests in life that matter, even over and above possibly maximising the production of food. One has to strike a balance; but these sites are relatively small in relation to the total of land in our countryside. They matter very much indeed. Let us be quite sure that we try to reach the right decision on this matter.
4.32 p.m.
Lord Gibson: I want to give general support to the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Craigton. There seems to be some confusion about how special scientific sites are actually designated. I do not think that they are designated as such. Some noble Lords who are present are on the Nature Conservancy Council, while I am not, but I understand that the council simply tells a planning authority what it regards as a site of special scientific interest, and the planning authority then has to observe that before giving planning permission. But, of course, all those changes which take place outside of planning control are not affected.
It seems to me that the problem lies in trying to get serious and adequate protection for sites which have been agreed by all seriously-intentioned and reasonable people—especially those most closely affected—as being in need of protection. We cannot claim that conservation is always paramount—if it were, the site in question ought to be a nature reserve—but it should be given due weight. It seems to me that the Government's proposals are inadequate in that they would lead to the selection of a few super-sites. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, takes the matter further, as far as I should want to go, and above all, Amendment No. 376 takes care of the essential point which emerged from what the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, said; namely, it is quite wrong that owners and occupiers should be in a position of suddenly finding themselves subject to SSI control—or however one wishes to describe it. They must be adequately consulted early enough and they must be given adequate appeal procedures. That is envisaged to some extent in the Bill; Schedule 10 relates to appeal procedures. But it is essential that there should be time for negotiation of management agreements—I believe that this is the key to all progress in this area—which lead to the balanced management to which several noble Lords referred on Second Reading. We need a system of control which encourages agreements of that kind, but in my opinion one cannot have them without a stick in reserve, and a carrot.
The National Trust, with which I am connected, as some noble Lords know, has 200,000 acres of SSIs—nearly half of the trust's total holding. We try to arrange with our farm tenants management agreements which preserve the nature conservation value of this very large area, and we nearly always get them, but in our case we have the reserve power of being the landlord. If you are not the landlord, you must have the reserve power by law. I think that we are doing what the Bill seeks to achieve for the country as a whole,
302
but the law will need to be strengthened rather more than the Government's proposals at present envisage if the objective is to be achieved, and for that reason, I commend the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, to the Committee.
Experience has taught us the value of scientific observation of the results of different courses of action on our properties, and that we try to inject, as it were, into the management agreements which we make with our tenants. As I say, I think we need a carrot and a stick. The Government say that they have no money and that they are setting up a framework for the provision of money when it can be afforded. So in effect they are providing the framework for the carrot, but hardly any stick. The stick is being provided only in the case of a very small number of sites. I feel that that is not really quite good enough, and I plead with the Government to think again between now and Report, so as to strengthen the degree of protection for sites which have been agreed by means of an altogether more consultative process than exists at present.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: I should like to support my noble friend Lord Craigton in his Amendment No. 376, and I also wish to say that I have great sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, said. I had a SSI notice served on me some time ago, but I knew nothing about it. It so happened that I was quite pleased, but had I not been pleased it would have been extremely aggravating for me. I happened to learn about it because merely by chance I saw a map showing that quite a lot of my land in Scotland had been declared a SSI. I should have thought that out of common courtesy, apart from anything else, the landlord and the occupiers ought to be informed in such cases.
During the course of my life I have seen natural and semi-natural woodlands virtually disappear from the hills. I remember one wood in a beautiful glen, Glencannel. It was a small wood of about 30 acres, and it has to all intents and purposes disappeared. That has been due to over-grazing by sheep. I know of several natural woods that due to that cause have to all intents and purposes disappeared. The old trees—birch, ash, hazel, even oaks, sometimes—are blown down and there is no further natural regeneration because of the sheep.
If you farm the land yourself—I farm some of mine, but not all if it—you can control that situation, but if you have tenants, especially in Scotland, you cannot control it because you have no power over them. They can have the farm tenancies for many generations, right down to a great-great-great grandson—in fact, forever. They can have them for 1,000 years. If we are to stop the destruction of our natural and semi-natural woodlands, I cannot see how it can be done unless we use the stick. One does not like using the stick, but I think it is necessary in many of these cases.
I do not wish to detain the Committee, but may I say that I hope that when a SSI is declared for the avowed purpose of protecting the flora, and fauna in particular, that will not mean that thousands of people will appear and walk all over the land and destroy the flora and fauna. How are the SSSIs going to prevent that? I do not know how you can

303
prevent it. Are those responsible for the SSSIs going to allow notices to go up saying, "Please do not stray from the path"?
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: May I help the noble Viscount? The position will not be changed from what it is at the moment in any way. The landlord, the owner of the land, has the right to have his land respected. The fact that something is an SSI has no effect whatever.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: I am talking about Scotland at the moment, but I think it will be difficult. Regarding trees again, in many areas in the Western Highlands the only parts in which you can see natural trees is in the burns and in the ravines, because the sheep cannot get down to eat them. But I will leave that. The other thing I was going to say my noble friend Lord Denham has just driven out of my mind. Yes, I remember. If the Government keep Clause 26(7) it will mean that in fact it will be very little use having SSSIs at all, surely, because farming and forestry operations do not come under planning permission. You could really drive a coach and four through the Bill regarding subsection (7) of Clause 26, and I hope something will be done about that. I think I am right in saving that; it appears to be a great loophole.
The other matter is that, surely, regarding farmers, the whole thing is compensation. When we come on to Clause 27, providing farmers get adequate compensation I am sure there will be no trouble, they will be perfectly satisfied. I am all for having a great number of SSSIs. Even with 3,800 only 5 per cent. of the country is covered, so it is really not so disastrous. You are not going to get a vast amount of food out of 5 per cent. of the country. A lot of that goes to afforestation, anyway. In the EEC we have far too much food as it is which goes at knock-down prices to Russia. So that is what I think, with due respect. I farm, but I think farmers are making too much of a fuss over this, and I heartily support my noble friend. Also, I have a sneaking sympathy—no, not sneaking; I have a great sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, said.
4.43 p.m.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: I cannot follow the noble Viscount in all his obiter dicta, but I would leave it to the noble Earl, Lord Avon, who is to reply to us, to deal with subsection (7). I think there is a point which needs answering there which is not for me to answer. I am obviously in the very fullest support of this amendment, but I want to give the Committee a little sense of proportion about this There are 3,900 sites, with an acreage of just over 5 per cent. of the whole nation's land—not cultivable land, but land. Of these, only 3½ per cent. are in danger of any kind from agriculture; others are sites with ruins, mountain tops or things of that sort. So we are speaking of 3·5 per cent. of the nation's land being protected in order to preserve the national heritage, which is a very small figure. Farming has got to go on and has got to develop—and, having brought up my children entirely as a professional farmer with small
304
capital, I know the difficulties—but there must be some room for some small areas which are protected.
I will give your Lordships an instance here from some of the figures I have been given. For example, in Wiltshire, on the chalk grassland 28 out of 50 (that is to say, 58 per cent.) of downland SSSIs have been damaged by agriculture, and "damaged by agriculture" means damaged by better farming. Make no mistake about that: we are deliberately asking the farmer to farm in a less modern way. In other words, the reasons given here are conversion to arable—that is ley farming (long live Sir John Stapleton and our past!)—and the improving of grazing by fertilisation. These are things which every good farmer does, and, nowadays, there are very few farmers who do not. When I started farming just after the war it was exceptional either to plough up old pasture or to use enough fertiliser, but that is done now, and it is done everywhere. What we are asking is that in certain designated areas, chosen by people who know what they are talking about, this should not be done except by arrangement and agreement with the Nature Conservancy Council.
The figure is extremely low when you come to think of it, and in nearly every case agreement can be arrived at; but there must of course be compensation, and we shall discuss that under the next clause. I remember ploughing up land for the first time. It was a fearful sweat, and if somebody had come to me and said, "Look here, I will pay you so much an acre not to do this for good reasons", I should have accepted that—for one field, of course. So I think it is very important that farmers—and I have particularly in my mind the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, who is a farmer and who seems to express the bitter side of the farmer rather more than makes me happy—should realise that they are being asked for very little and that they are being offered compensation for what we ask of them.
Following this up, the Government, in relation to our total number of SSSIs, are speaking of doing 1 per cent. of the total number. There are 3,900, and they are speaking of doing 40 SSSIs and giving them special attention. It really is totally ludicrous. My noble friend Lady White said the last word on this, and I will not say it again. They are not responding to the need; and there is no reason to hold back the safeguards for which the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, has provided. In particular, Amendment No. 376, which the CLA has agreed to as well, I am glad to say, makes absolutely certain that the people concerned, the owner and occupier of the land, are informed before anything is done and the thing discussed with them. Of course, this ought always to have happened, and the fact that it has not (if it has not, and we are told it has not) is a very bad thing.
I have very little to add to those two main points. I feel one thing about the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Middleton. In so far as we could remove imprisonment from one of the sanctions, I should be strongly in favour of it. I rather believe there may be legal difficulties in doing this, but I am glad he said that. If you are dealing with a farmer who is making a certain amount of money I do not mind having very high fines, but imprisonment seems to me totally unsuitable. Amendment No. 413, asking that the order should become a local land charge, is, of course,

305
absolutely vital, because otherwise it will change hands and it goes.
We have had so much support here. I suppose a number of noble Lords opposite are very much larger land-owners than Lord Gibson's organisation, which has got only 200,000 acres, but I only hope that they manage their estates, especially in Scotland, where many of them are a great deal larger than that, as well as he does. What we have been offered is totally unacceptable, and I very much hope that the noble Earl will have something better to say to us.
The Earl of Onslow: The noble Lord, Lord Middleton, in his remarks cast a certain aspersion on some of the accuracy of the damage report figures. That is what I understood him to say. I was going to give your Lordships two or three examples. Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge has already nicked the one about Wiltshire; on the upland heaths Galloway has lost 90 per cent. of its rare breeding waders and birds of prey since the 1950s. Your Lordships' Select Committee on Science and Technology said that between one-third and one-half of our ancient deciduous woodland in Britain has been destroyed since 1947, a loss equivalent to that of the previous 400 years; Horton Common is being destroyed by a farmer today despite objections by the NCC, in particular.
Broxhead Common is one of the few places near where I live where the Dartford warbler nests. If anyone goes and nicks a Dartford warbler's egg, they will be subject to special penalties. However, a sports club applied for planning permission to put up a pavilion, which they did, and a car park, which they did, and found that it was not necessary to apply for planning permission to make some playing fields. The DoE told them that this was the case. The plateau above the slope was an area of original heath-land justifiably designated by the NCC as a site of special scientific interest. It was also a nature reserve under Section 21 of the 1949 National Parks Act. The bulldozers arrived before the Secretary of State had taken cognisance of the fact. The trees and the gorse were smashed down, piled up and burned. The fire was left unattended, the sparks flew and the resulting fire spread throughout the Dartford warblers' nesting area, incinerating the SSSI. I do not think that any of the careless contractors will be subject to special penalties. They did not nick one egg. They burnt the whole place down.
This is possibly using slightly colourful language, but I have a suspicion that the situation is so serious that we perhaps need colourful language to bring the points to your Lordships' attention. I have the further suspicion that this Government, excellent though they are in many ways, are not quite giving this matter the sympathy which I think has been shown to be needed on all sides of the Committee.
4.52 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: This is an emotive issue and one must analyse the practicalities of the amendments on the Marshalled List. The amendments in the name of my noble friends Lord Buxton and Lord Craigton, maintain two tiers of SSSI—super and ordinary—but with both having a higher level of protection than is currently envisaged in the Bill. With respect
306
to my noble friend, I do not call that the middle ground. The first question which must be asked is this. Have the NCC the manpower, finance and expertise—
Lord Melchett: Can the noble Earl explain how the amendments create two tiers of SSSI? I understood Lord Craigton to say that his proposals affected all SSSIs; in other words, procedure for notifying change to the NCC applied to all.
The Earl of Caithness: I believe that there are two tiers of SSSI but at a higher level than at the moment; in that my noble friend Lord Craigton envisages a super SSSI where there would be a complete ban on all agricultural operations—
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: No.
The Earl of Caithness: I will take advice on that.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: I believe the noble Earl is wrong.
The Earl of Caithness: I shall be happy to have a look at it, but the point I am making is still a valid one. The first question is whether the NCC has the manpower, finance or expertise to control the production of food and the livelihood of, perhaps, thousands of farmers on about 1·5 million acres in this country. The answer is, surely, no. Despite the hopes that they might be able to do it, I do not believe that they can. If the answer was yes, then the structure of British farming as we know it today would have to change. I do not think this is the opportune moment to arrange for such a change or to take the debate on it a stage further. There is no question that certain sites must be protected. The farmers themselves would be numbered among the most dismayed if no increased protection were given to our most endangered animals and plants.
The answer as to which sites should be protected was given to noble Lords by the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, on the first day of the Committee, on 27th January, when he said (in column 653):
"I do not think the fact that animals are disappearing in one area in an island like this is very important provided that there are plenty of them elsewhere".
I agree with him. I believe we ought to preserve the rarest animals and plants and that these should be afforded special protection where necessary in order to secure their survival. I think that this is provided for by the Government, also taking account of the remarks made by my noble friend Lord Onslow. It appears to me that the Government, with their own amendments, have now achieved the right balance. I understand that some 50 sites are under consideration at the moment for special protection but the wording of the Government amendments does not prohibit an extension of the special protection, where finance and manpower are available, to all NCC Grade 1 sites, which number about 600.
There is an aspect which has not been touched on yet and that is the advantages which can be achieved for tax relief where one has a site of special scientific interest. Under Section 76 and 77 of the Finance Act 1976, the Treasury may give relief from tax to any

307
land which, in the opinion of the Treasury, is of outstanding scenic, historical or scientific interest. The exemption is conditional on the owner giving an undertaking to maintain the land and preserve its character and to secure reasonable access to the public. The statutory machinery is already in existence, ready to be used. Nevertheless, doubts linger in the mind of landowners because the Treasury interpretation of that statute does not give an unequivocal assurance that relief will be granted to owners of SSSIs. I feel that the decision whether or not a piece of land is of special scientific interest is a matter for the NCC and that the Treasury, having taken the advice of the NCC, should accept it and be prepared to grant tax relief automatically.
Lord Melchett: I agree with the noble Earl, but does he not think it more likely that the Treasury would take another line? The last Government pursued this with them vigorously. If Lord Craigton's amendment is accepted and all owners of all SSSIs have to notify the NCC when they are going to make a change, then the Government's proposal, which the noble Earl has said would only affect 40 or 50, seems to me to give the Treasury a perfect argument, which they will exploit to the full, for giving tax relief on that 40 or 50 only.
The Earl of Caithness: I will read what the noble Lord has said. It would help if the NCC told the farmers where they were designating land and also what the farmers were supposed to protect. As was stated on many occasions at Second Reading, the countryside is ever-changing. It is not something to be preserved in a glass case. Our heritage, which is so important to us, is best managed by mutual agreement and by a good understanding between the NCC and the farmers. I believe the Government have got it right. I think it is a fair balance. I think that one is already seeing, notwithsanding some remarks made earlier, an improvement in the state of our wild life due to this happy arrangement.
Lord Burton: I sympathise and agree with the intention of the amendment of my noble friend Lord Craigton, but it may have the reverse effect from what he and many others desire it to have. It seems that if you implement the last words of the particular amendment:
"the notice shall have effect as from the day on which it is served",
then you are showing the stick straight away. There is nothing in this, as the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, said, about consultation. Had the position been as Lord Donaldson has said, that there was persuasion (and I shall not go into compensation now; but it is a type of persuasion) then this would be a different matter. If you suddenly get a notice out of the blue which tells you that you may not do something, then immediately you say: "Why not? This is ridiculous. I have not been asked. So far as I know no one has looked at my ground". It is the wrong way to go about it. The Government's attitude is much more correct; it gives a much better chance of having persuasion and having discussion.
Lord Melchett: I do not want to keep bobbing up and down. I have a nasty feeling that the noble Lord is confusing my amendment with Lord Craigton's amendment. My amendment would stop people doing things straight away. The amendments we are now discussing simply mean that the landowners would notify the NCC if they intended to do something. Then there would be an opportunity, as the noble Lord is saying, for negotiation and discussion. Under the Government's proposals there would not because the NCC would not know that these changes were taking place; they would simply carry on except on the 40 or 50 selected sites.
Lord Burton: The noble Lord, with due respect, is wrong. The amendment clearly says:
"The Nature Conservancy Council shall serve on every owner and occupier of any land … and the notice shall have effect as from the day on which it is served".
There is nothing which says that there should be prior consultation.
Lord Melchett: But that notice does not stop the landowner doing anything. The noble Lord needs to look at the set of amendments together. It is a later amendment which says that if any of these operations in the first one are contemplated, then the landowner should notify the NCC and discuss that with them. This amendment does not stop the landowner doing anything. That comes in a much later amendment and is only when the Secretary of State makes a decision to that effect.
Lord Burton: I do not know whether the noble Lord heard what the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, had to say. We do not get a warning; suddenly a notice appears. It says you will get a notice. It does not say that there will be prior consultation. You get the stick straight away.
Lord Melchett: If I may say so, the noble Lord is misleading the Committee. That is not what this amendment does. This amendment simply says that the NCC must notify the owner of operations about which the owner should consult the NCC before going ahead. That is not the big stick.
Lord Burton: May I move on to what the noble Lord, Lord Gibson said; this matter can be looked at again. The problem seems to arise where there is no planning control. So far as I can see, there is no great difficulty where there is planning control because before anything is done the planning committee will be consulted and the NCC will have their say before the planning committee. The problem arises—if I understood the noble Lord, Lord Gibson, correctly—where there is no planning control, such as in ploughing up some ground or blanket planting of an area of ground. Some of us have complained bitterly about the Forestry Commission doing this. There is no planning control on that. Also, for that matter, in some cases destroying a natural area.
There should be some control on this, and perhaps the Government can look to see whether an amendment could be put down to make it possible to bring in some control where there is no planning permission.

309
If there is planning permission, I can see no difficulty in this amendment.
5.5 p.m.
Viscount Thurso: The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, called for a sense of proportion on this matter. The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, called for colourful language. Personally on this particular amendment I would prefer a sense of proportion to colourful language. I think that a sense of proportion requires facts, and facts are hard to come by. I find it almost impossible to recognise the NCC that I know in the description of what goes on in Wales given to us by the noble Baroness, Lady White. But in the Highlands of Scotland we have a very different situation. There is already in the Highlands 1 million acres of SSSIs. That is in the seven crofting counties. It is widely said all over the Highlands that the NCC intend to expand that until 8 per cent. of the whole area of the Highlands is under an SSSI.
It is also widely said that they intend to make the entire coast of the Highlands of Scotland an SSSI. That may be rumour. But that is the kind of impression they are putting about. What I know as a fact from talking to officers of the NCC is that they are deliberately creating more areas of SSSI in order that some of them may be lost. There is something wrong here. We cannot assume that every area that up to now has been designated as an SSSI—certainly in the Highlands—is the only area that is of special scientific interest. We must assume that some of this has been put down in order to make sure that there is no encroachment upon some other area.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: That is not a damaging statement; but the statement that the noble Viscount made before is a very damaging one. I want to be sure that I heard him right: that the NCC are deliberately creating more SSSIs than they need in order to be able to give some back. That is what I understood. Did I misunderstand the noble Viscount?
Viscount Thurso: This is what I understand from my conversations with officers of the NCC.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: May I repeat that I think that that is a very damaging statement to make in this Committee without written evidence of a very clear kind.
Viscount Thurso: I will give some evidence which shows the extent to which they throw blankets around areas. Again, I refer to an area which is on my ground. At the centre of this area is about 1,000 acres of flat blanket bog. This is the area which the NCC consider should be preserved. Around it they have thrown an area of about 12,500 acres. They have done this, they say, just in case anything happened to the hydrology of the area that might damage this wet bog in the centre. Yet, all over the area are sheep drains that were put in at the time of my great grandfather. There are other sheep drains that were put in with Government grant under the Hill Farming Act scheme. They now want to prevent these drains being kept clean in order to preserve an area that has
310
successfully been a bog throughout the lifetime of these drains.
It may well be that there is some remote, interesting reason why this great waste place should be preserved. I personally do not see it. It may well be that in order to preserve it it is necessary to stop anybody cleaning the sheep drains on the place. But there is a part of this area which I know is over the watershed, it is on the other side of the water table on a neighbour's ground. I know the watershed runs between this bog and the area of my neighbour's ground which is part of the SSSI. The mind boggles at the amount of protection that it seems has to be put upon an area in order to protect it from the possibility of development of any sort.
The Earl of Onslow: The noble Lord, Lord Renton, pointed out what could happen when a water authority lowered the water table and destroyed the habitat of the swallowtail butterfly. There are reasons on both sides of this argument. His could have been better protected by bigger SSSIs. The noble Viscount's one may be unnecessary, but it is not all as simple as he tends to make out.
Viscount Thurso: The noble Earl has got it wrong. Nobody can lower the water table by draining on the other side of a watershed. If the noble Earl can tell me how to drain a bog by making a ditch a mile away from the bog on flat peatland, I shall be very glad indeed of the information, because it would be vital information for the hill farmers in Scotland.
No; let us have a sense of proportion and let us in particular have a sense of proportion in relation to the SSSIs. They were a tool that was designed for the planning departments and not things that were designed to be nature reserves. I come back to that. If we want to protect a specific habitat, then that habitat should be looked at carefully, and if it requires preservation in order to ensure the continuance of the species it ought to be made a nature reserve and properly and fully protected and properly and fully managed by co-operation between everybody who is interested in it.
The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, said he would be delighted if he was paid not to plough up land. But the fact is that if this goes through there will be thousands of places where people will be prohibited from getting grants to which they were previously entitled—thereby being able to carry out farming operations which previously had been urged upon them by the country in the interests of food production—by the fact that these places are declared to be SSSIs. Whether it is right to prevent people getting grants in perpetuity because they have some special scientific interest should surely be questionable.
Lord Melchett: The noble Viscount said that people could be stopped from getting grants simply because the ground had some special scientific interest. But surely that seems to be misleading the Committee as to the nature of these amendments. The noble Viscount seems to be entangled with my own amendment rather than these. Under these amendments it is the Secretary of State who decides whether the grants are given or whether the area is protected. It

311
has nothing to do at that stage with a decision of the NCC. If you are to be stopped from doing something under these amendments, it has to be by a decision taken by the Secretary of State.
Viscount Thurso: I would be glad if I was sure that was so; but it seems to me you may well find that you are unable to get your drainage grant, and so on, because a place is declared an SSSI. Now at the—
Lord Melchett: I really do not think—
Viscount Thurso: I wish the noble Lord would allow me to finish my sentence. What I was going to say was that a place is declared an SSSI without consultation—because on none of the existing sites that I know of has there been any form of consultation or discussion before the label "site of special scientific interest" has been imposed. Does the noble Lord wish to come in now?
Lord Melchett: If I may. I apologise for interrupting the noble Viscount in the middle of a sentence. I was simply going to point out that what he is describing is already the position and it is not affected at all by these amendments. Under the changes in the farm capital grants scheme which the Government introduced last year, anyone who wants to apply for a capital grant on a site of special scientific interest has to give the NCC prior notice. That is already the position. All these amendments do, as I understand it, is to give the Secretary of State the decision-making power, if the NCC go and ask the Secretary of State to make a decision in order to stop a landowner doing something. It is the Secretary of State and not the NCC. The question of capital grants was decided last year.
Viscount Thurso: The noble Lord may have described it more accurately than I have, but certainly it becomes a very difficult procedure to go ahead with a normal farming operation and I do feel there are anomalies. Many of the SSSIs which exist should be examined, if they are to be given greater status, because many of them are extremely awkwardly shaped from the point of view of the farmer and the owner of the ground. I think that just to make it an obligation on everybody to notify their intention to carry out farming operations is placing a greater restriction on the farmer than already exists, because at the moment all that happens if he applies for a grant is that the grant may be withheld, but if he has to notify every farming operation which he is going to carry out in or near an SSSI, that is a greater imposition upon him than exists at the present moment.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: I am extremely sorry to keep on interrupting, but it is rather misleading. If the noble Viscount looks at Amendment No. 376, Lord Craigton's amendment, he will see that the Nature Conservancy Council can serve a notice, and in it can say whether it is an area of special interest and say what is the special interest—in other words, if it is a particular butterfly, or something, they will know what it is—and mention any operations which in the council's opinion are likely to destroy or damage
312
such an interest. To describe this as meaning that you have to get permission before you attempt any farming operation, is really not serious discussion at all.
Viscount Thurso: If I have over-stressed the case, apologise to your Lordships' Committee; but certainly it does make it more difficult to get on with many common farming operations, and the reason for declaring the area to be an SSSI will have been to prevent those operations taking place, in all probability.
Finally, I should like to say that, in looking at the number of SSSIs which now exist, I think we must bear in mind that merely to carry out afforestation and so on in the hills or highlands is not necessarily to damage wildlife. In fact, in many areas where afforestation has taken place there has been a great increase in the wildlife able to live in the newly afforested area than lived there before, and indeed they are able to live there in much greater variety. So that the activities of people who wish to afforest and to drain are not always harmful—and during this debate there has been a tendency for the impression to get abroad that the activities of farmers are always harmful to nature. This is definitely not so.
Lord Foot: I should like to make three comments; if I may, and also to make one thing clear, if it is not clear already to the Committee, which is that this is possibly the only matter in the world on which my noble friends on these Benches are not absolutely united. They are almost united. It is arguable whether "almost united" is or is not a grammatical error. However, I will leave that on one side; and I think I speak now on behalf of the great majority of my colleagues. I very much welcome both amendments and I should like to ask a question of both the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, and the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, in order to clear my mind somewhat. I am in favour of both amendments. I think there is great virtue in the proposal that the Nature Conservancy Council shall serve this notice upon people, telling them that it is a site of special scientific interest and stating also what the interest is. There is great virtue in that. I also think that there is considerable virtue, if it were to follow upon that, in attaching the terms of this section of the Bill to all SSSIs and then leaving it to the Secretary of State, if he thinks fit, to make exclusions. I should have thought that that would go a very long way to overcoming any of the administrative difficulties about which we have been hearing this afternoon. I should like to know if I could, from both the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, and the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, whether the two amendments can be combined together.
Lord Craigton: I do not think so. The noble Lord will have heard his noble friend Lord Thurso behind him, who made a case which the noble Lord on the Front Bench opposite answered. But my amendment goes a long way towards meeting that case. I believe that the original amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, would give the Secretary of State dictatorial powers which would be unacceptable to the farming community and which the conservation bodies that I represent do not think is essential.
Earl De La Warr: I suppose that this debate will have to come to an end in due course, and I hope that it does so before it becomes either more complicated or more colourful. To me it is certainly very complicated. But in an endeavour to try to simplify what has been said, I should like to suggest that there is a quantitative element in what we are talking about, as well as a qualitative one. Certain noble Lords have said that 3,900 SSSIs is far too many for the Nature Conservancy Council, at its present size, to deal with. Others have said—and the noble Baroness, Lady White, said it very trenchantly—that to go as low as 40 is quite ludicrous. I agree with both statements.
But what occurs to me—and this point was originally made by my noble friend Lord Middleton and, subsequently, by my noble friend Lord Caithness—is that, with the new amendments which the Government have tabled, it is perfectly easy for them, if they so wish, to continue to designate up to a point where it can be said that all the really important SSSIs are covered, so that the Nature Conservancy Council can gradually build up its forces and its contacts in an orderly way. We can surely satisfy practically all parties in this House, by asking my noble friend Lord Avon to say that that is the intention of the Government. If that be his intention, then I, for one, will find myself wholly satisfied by the Government's clause as it stands.
Lord Sandford: I wonder whether I could say a brief word in support of my noble friend Lord Craigton. There seem to me to be two compelling reasons why his amendment, or something very like it, must be accepted. The first is that it is quite clear, from abundant evidence in this debate alone, that the Nature Conservancy Council have not been serving notices on the owners and occupiers of land for which they want the title SSSI. That is obviously very desirable. The second reason is because of what my noble friend Lord Mansfield said in this House on 6th August, in connection with farm capital grants. I quote from col. 1572 of Hansard. He said:
"I leave your Lordships with the following point so far as conservation is concerned"—
we are concerned with conservation here—
"The obligation on the farmer will be exactly the same as it has been previously. Before he makes his application for grant"—
and I should have thought that this was important for all of them—
"he will have to certify that he has informed and consulted the appropriate body".
That is about what he can do and cannot do. Unless we have the amendment of my noble friend Lord Craigton, and particularly that part of it which reads,
"…a notice specifying—
(b) any operations appearing to the Council to be likely to destroy or damage such interest",
neither the farmer, nor those advising him, will know where they stand.
Lord Melchett: May I make one point before the noble Earl on the Government Front Bench comes in? It seems to me that there is a misunderstanding—at least, compared to how I understand it—of what the Government are proposing. The Government's proposals do not protect any sites at all. All they do, in
314
the Bill as it stands, is provide for a notification procedure on a small number of sites. The only way that those sites can be protected is if the Nature Conservancy Council compulsorily purchases them. That is clear from Clause 26(5) which deals with compulsory purchase.
But there is no protection in notification procedures. All that notification procedures do is to ensure that people know that something is going to be destroyed. They do not lead to anything more than that. So the Government's proposals, if they were to be extended, would lead to a massive extension of compulsory purchase, if that was to be the procedure. I suppose that some of us would like to see a lot more land going out of private ownership and into the ownership of the Nature Conservancy Council. But I cannot believe that is really the intention of the Government.
Lord Burton: The noble Lord accused me of misleading the Committee. I think that he is misleading the Committee now. He said that it is only a matter of serving a notice. In fact, if you have to get planning permission, the planners must look at the SSSI. Therefore, there is a control.
Lord Melchett: Yes, but we are not talking about planning permission at this stage. We are talking about operations which are not covered by planning control—
Lord Burton: I would not say so.
Lord Melchett: I am sorry, but the whole debate has been about operations not covered by planning control. I apologise if it was misleading for me not to make the point in what was intended to be a brief intervention. The Government's proposals do not cover operations covered by planning control. They cover other operations. They would allow the Secretary of State to put an order on a site which would lead to the landowner or farmer giving notifications on that site—this is one of the 40 or 50—if they intended to do something which would damage the site. Then there would be a period for negotiation. At the end of that, the only thing that the Nature Conservancy Council could do, if the farmer or landowner continued wanting to destroy one of these 40 or 50 sites, would be to purchase it compulsorily. It is important to be clear about that, if anyone is to suggest that the Government's proposals in the Bill are capable of extension, because they are clearly not.
Lord Middleton: I shall not pre-empt what my noble friend Lord Avon is going to say, but the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, really has not read Clause 26.
Lord Underhill: The noble Lord, Lord Foot, asked whether I thought the two amendments could be combined. As they stand, the answer is, no. There are exceptional points in the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, but the amendment which I moved reverses the situation. Whether or not they could be amalgamated, if the Committee is unwise in not taking a decision, we may see as we go along.
The Earl of Avon: We have had a very good innings at the start of Part II. I should like to start by saying

315
to the noble Baroness, Lady White, that I am sorry if I gave a wrong impression to start with that I was not worried about the state of conservation. I am, of course, worried and the Government are very worried. That is surely why we are now at our fifth day of discussion of a very comprehensive Bill, which the Government themselves have brought forward. Perhaps I may say the same to my noble friend Lord Onslow that we would not be discussing this Bill in such detail unless we were concerned about it—and we really are.
The noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, raised a number of points about the Nature Conservancy Council, which I feel I should put right. No specific sites are, at the moment, under consideration for designation. That will happen after the passage of the Bill. There have been lots of rumours about what will be and what might not be, but no decisions have been made. It is not true that the NCC have been over-enthusiastic in notification of SSSIs. They are selected on the basis of strict criteria and future notifications of SSSIs will be on the same basis as they are now. The noble Viscount referred to his bog, and I am delighted to know that it is such a good one. It is recognised by the NCC as an internationally important site and, according to them, it is necessary to conserve the whole hydrological unit to ensure its survival. I am sure the Nature Conservancy Council will read what the noble Viscount has said and will come back to him on any points, other than that, which he may have raised. The noble Baroness, Lady White, said that the Berwyn Mountains had been notified. I do not think that they have been notified. I am informed that the Nature Conservancy Council deferred notification to allow further consultation.
Baroness White: I am sorry if I was misunderstood. The procedure has been going on for quite some time. It has not yet reached finality.
The Earl of Avon: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for confirming that. The Nature Conservancy Council accepts that the afforestation of certain kinds of ground can increase its wildlife content, but where afforestation affects sites of special scientific interest it invariably reduces the scientific interest.
May I examine the list of amendments referred to by my noble friend Lord Craigton? I need not list all the numbers. Perhaps your Lordships will forgive me if I outline, as I understand it, the essence of the proposals. First, they recognise the need and retain the Government's own proposals for giving extra protection—perhaps I should say super protection—to certain sites of special scientific interest. May I correct an impression which may be gaining ground? These sites are not super; it is the protection that is super. Of the present total of some 3,800 sites of special scientific interest which the Nature Conservancy Council consider to be areas of special scientific interest, there are some which are of special quality, for one reason or another. Many of them are of international as well as national value. At present these have ultimately no statutory protection, other than where they are owned by the Nature Conservancy Council itself, or a conservation body, or where the
316
owner is willing to reach agreement with the Nature Conservancy Council.
Not all these sites are threatened, but the Government consider it vital that some means should be available to ensure that, where it is merited, either because of the value of a site which is particularly threatened or because the Government has entered into a specific international obligation, full protection could be given. Clause 26 for the first time offers the opportunity of total statutory protection to such sites. Sites are not super, except to the extent that they would invariably be one of the sites listed in the Nature Conservation Review. But the protection afforded, I think we can all agree, can fairly be described as super.
Lord Melchett: The noble Lord, Lord Middleton, accused me of not having read Clause 26. As the noble Earl is dealing with Clause 26, can he explain—if I have misunderstood it I apologise—what happens under subsection 3(c), which deals with a site which is protected and where the notice has expired? As I understand it, this super protection at that stage involves compulsory purchase and nothing else. I hope that the noble Earl will be able to agree with me and not with his noble friend behind him.
The Earl of Avon: I agree with the noble Lord, but I think he muddled the Committee by the use of the word "notification" instead of "designation".
Lord Melchett: To be absolutely clear, the protection which the Government offer in the Bill at the end of the day if the owner wants to go ahead is compulsory purchase and nothing else, is it not? I want to be absolutely clear about that.
The Earl of Avon: That is correct—after all agreements and everything else has been discussed. My noble friend's amendments seek to deal with the rest of the sites of special scienctific interest which would not be covered by such super protection. My noble friends Lord Middleton, Lord Sandford and Lord Burton spoke on this, as did the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso. First, the amendments impose a duty upon the Nature Conservancy Council to notify all owners and occupiers of such land that the land is of special interest. Secondly, the landowner is to be told precisely why. Thirdly, he is to be told what operations will be damaging to that interest. The amendments also require owners and occupiers to give 28 days' notice of any of the potentially damaging operations, during which time the Nature Conservancy Council must either reach agreement with the owner or ask the Secretary of State to impose super protection, which he must also do within the period of 28 days, otherwise the owner is free to proceed. Finally, they propose that all sites of special scientific interest should be a land charge.
I hope my noble friend will forgive me if he feels that I have unduly condensed these proposals. As your Lordships will be aware, the Government's aim is to keep to a minimum the extent to which the state applies restrictions not only to landowners but to the public at large. At the same time, we seek to encourage positive conservation measures by landowners and the general public so as to avoid the need

317
for Government intervention. Let there be no doubt that there is a large body of landowners and the public who willingly respond to such appeals. However, all too often I hear the plea from concerned parties, "How can I protect my site of special scientific interest if I do not know that I have one, or why, or what would damage it?"
So far as the Nature Conservancy Council's role is concerned, the Government accept the general burden of the first part of my noble friend's amendments. It is common ground therefore that the Nature Conservancy Council should have a statutory duty to inform all owners of land which is of special scientific interest why it is of interest and what operations might damage the land. Accordingly, the Government will be tabling amendments. I should like to make it clear that, whatever happens, it would not be possible for the Nature Conservancy Council to notify everybody of all these things the day after the Act is passed.
One of the problems with sites of special scientific interest is how to ensure that subsequent owners are aware of their existence. It was clearly for this reason that my noble friend and others have proposed that sites of special scientific interest should be made a land charge. The Government are attracted to this idea. The sites designated by the Secretary of State for super protection will automatically constitute local land charges, as will any land subject to agreements which have a binding effect on successors. This will not be the case in relation to the generality of sites of special scientific interest.
Lord Craigton: Am I right in understanding that my noble friend is accepting in principle Amendment No. 376, which allows the Nature Conservancy Council to advise all landowners, and that he is also accepting Amendment No. 413 which says that the land charge is an acceptable policy?
Baroness White: Before the noble Earl replies, may I ask him about his remarks concerning Amendment No. 376? He said that it would be unreasonable for the notice to be effective from the day on which the Bill becomes operative. That is not what the Amendment says. It says: "from the day on which [the notice] is served". There are situations where, if you are served with a notice which is not immediately operative you then proceed rapidly to destroy, if you are so minded.
The Earl of Avon: To take first the points raised by my noble friend, yes. To take next the point raised by the noble Baroness, I probably went into that sentence too quickly. The Government will be tabling amendments for the three facts which cover my noble friend's amendment. I then said, after a long full stop: "I should make it clear, however, that, whatever happens, it will not be possible for the Nature Conservancy Council to notify everybody of all these things the day after the Act is passed."
May I now refer to the Government's attitude to landowners being required to notify the Nature Conservancy Council of these operations which the Nature Conservancy Council have told them might risk damaging the site. The Government consider that most landowners would quite voluntarily wish to
318
protect the scientific value of the land, provided they knew what operations would place it at risk. They would do so, either because of a genuine interest in the aims of conservation or perhaps to ensure that they could achieve the not inconsiderable benefits accruing from capital transfer tax exemption, about which I shall say more in a moment. In addition, for any more substantial land developments for which a landowner would require a grant from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food he is now required to consult the Nature Conservancy Council beforehand, unless he wishes to risk forfeiting that grant, and in such cases the Nature Conservancy Council have two months in which to reply.
I think the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kings-bridge, has mentioned already that of approximately 3,800 sites, about one-third are not, by their very nature, susceptible to such damage or disruption.
Lord Craigton: Before my noble friend leaves that point, is he accepting four weeks instead of three months?
The Earl of Avon: I am not quite sure to which amendment my noble friend is referring.
Lord Craigton: No. 399.
The Earl of Avon: Perhaps I could come back to that in a minute. With regard to capital transfer tax, as your Lordships have been made aware by my noble friend Lord Caithness, there is a provision for the Treasury to agree exemption from the application of capital transfer tax in relation to a site of special scientific interest. I can assure the Committee that an SSSI can be expected to satisfy the criteria under Section 77 of the Finance Act.
This provision can be of considerable value to an owner, and the Treasury will grant exemption only if they can be satisfied that adequate measures have been taken by the landowner to secure the scientific interest of a site for posterity. May I give an example. Without an agreement, an area of land valued at £200,000 would normally be liable on lifetime transfer or bequest to a sum of about £45,000 to £75,000 of tax, approximately, depending upon whether the transfer took place during or after a person's lifetime. This, of course, would be exempt. I will add that of course the NCC will be only too willing to discuss with landowners how best to maintain that interest for posterity in order to satisfy the Treasury in relation to capital transfer tax exemption. In fact, this is a three-way partnership between the Treasury, the NCC and the landowner.
In these circumstances, the Government do not consider that they are justified in placing a statutory obligation on all landowners of SSSIs to notify the NCC of all operations which might damage the site. However, the Government are prepared to urge the farming and landowning communities through the NFU and the CLA and Government officials voluntarily to notify such operations, and I am sure that the bodies will do their best to co-operate. As to the question of informing people of the existence of SSSIs, as I have said the Government are totally behind this and will table amendments accordingly.
Lord Melchett: The noble Earl said that the local land charge would only apply to the 40 or 50 SSSIs on which the Government envisage having an order placed, rather than the 3,800 which are in existence; so successors in title to land will not know about SSSIs unless they happen to be one of the 40 or 50. Is that right?
The Earl of Avon: The land charges will affect any restriction which is placed on the land for future use; in other words, it would be the 40 and also the CTT. What it does not affect is where there is an agreement which does not bind one's successors. Of course, there is no land charge then.
Lord Melchett: If I may say so, the noble Earl was, in a somewhat convoluted way, agreeing with me that the local land charge would not apply to almost all SSSIs, except the very few where these alternating powers or some other agreement were in force.
The Earl of Avon: The noble Lord is correct, although quantifying these things is slightly difficult, as we have already discovered once or twice.
Lord Chelwood: If I may intervene, the noble Earl has been extremely patient with the Committee, but on this subject he will remember that at Second Reading I raised the question of the conditional exemption from capital transfer tax. Does it not go a little further than that, and is this not another advantage of which owners of SSSIs ought to be made aware? Are there not certain capital gains tax benefits also associated with this conditional exemption under Section 77 of the Finance Act 1976? If that is the case, which I believe it is, may I ask my noble friend whether the Treasury will look at this question of the douceur, which is 25 per cent. where objects are concerned and only 10 per cent. where land is concerned? That seems to be quite illogical. I would be extremely grateful if, perhaps even during the Report stage, my noble friend would be good enough to comment on that as well, and also assure the Committee that what he has just said will be made widely known to all owners of SSSIs, bearing in mind that in the first four years after the 1976 Finance Act only seven owners took advantage of the fiscal reliefs which were available.
The Earl of Avon: It is a little difficult with questions coming left and right. My noble friend Lord Chelwood asked for clarification on CTT. I was not aware of the douceur that he mentioned and I will indeed look into it. I am sure that it will come up in the House later and I shall be able to clarify it to the House anyway. My noble friend Lord Craigton asked me about the days. We are not accepting the notification by the landowner, but we are accepting notification by the NCC, so actually I think his question about the 28 days does not really apply.
The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, mentioned the question of imprisonment, and I think I said in Committee on the last occasion that I hoped to be able to inform him by today what the answer is. The answer is that the departments are still talking and it is still under consideration, but directly I know the answer I will of course inform the Committee.
320
My noble friend Lord Massereene and Ferrard, in his interesting speech, mentioned quite a lot about trees and afforestation. I should tell him that there is, of course, a tree preservation order which should cope with the problems he mentioned. Of course, afforestation is carried on by the Forestry Commission, where they pay a lot of attention to wildlife and conservation. My noble friend Lord Renton mentioned hedgerows. This is a difficult topic which I feel sure will come up again. They are not, of course, affected by anything that has been mentioned so far on SSSIs, but I have always said that there is no earthly reason why hedgerows should not be an SSSI in a certain area if the NCC so wished.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, kindly spoke to his amendment. Nature reserves declared by the NCC, which are generally known as national nature reserves, are reserves owned or managed by organisations such as the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the National Trust or any of the county naturalists' trusts. I understand that there may be about 1,000 of these. They have been regarded as being safe from damaging development and would not normally be regarded as candidates for a Section 26 order. Having said that, my noble friend Lord Chelwood has tabled an amendment which removes the anomaly created by the 1949 Act that a nature reserve shall not be notified as an area of special scientific interest. The Government are pleased to accept the thought behind this amendment and are tabling their own amendment to the same effect. The result will be that SSSIs, henceforward, will not artificially exclude areas of land which are managed by nature reserves.
I have tried to cover most of the points which have been raised. I have indicated those areas in which the Government are prepared to table amendments; that is, NCC notification of sites, of what is of particular interest and of the area of damage which could be done in that site. I have tried to meet my noble friend's aims and the extent to which the Government consider that we should rely on voluntary co-operation and the provision of incentives; that is to say, MAFF grants and the CTT agreements. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Gibson, might like to know that we have produced some incentives as well—incentives to landowners to protect the generality of SSSIs. With these assurances and the obvious consideration that we have given to this, I hope my noble friend Lord Craigton will feel able to withdraw his amendments.
Lord Melchett: I have listened very carefully and I am astonished at the inadequacy of the noble Earl's reply. I cannot believe that I have understood it correctly. He seems to be saying that we shall end with a position where there is no notification of SSSIs in general, so there is no way of knowing when damage is going to occur, unless somebody happens to volunteer the fact that they are about to destroy a site of special scientific interest. If there is no notification, we shall continue to be faced with figures, as we have been in this debate, of what happened in 1980, when we had 10 per cent. lost or damaged; but we shall have no way of knowing what is going on at the moment, except, of course, for the 40 or 50 sites where there will be notification provisions, which I hope the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, and I now agree upon. Those 40

321
or 50 sites will only be able to be protected through compulsory purchase powers and by no other means at all. All the rest of the SSSIs will be left totally unprotected, as they are now.
The Earl of Avon: Once again the noble Lord is using the word "notification" rather haphazardly. As I have just informed the Committee, we are progressing because we are doing notification by the NCC to landowners on three different points. When it comes to designation orders that is somthing different. Designation orders are new in this Bill and they are the basis of Clause 26; and those orders which we are bandying about as being 40 or 50 can be any number. There is no reason why it should not be more, and, as my noble friend Lord De La Warr has said, we do not know how many more. If the Government turn the economic corner by October, we may have a lot of money and be able to expand the NCC and we may be able to designate more, but at the moment this is our plan. We think it is a good plan and we think it goes a long way to meet most of the points which have been raised today.
Lord Melchett: I am not misunderstanding; the noble Earl interrupted me before I had finished. As I understand it, "notification" means the landowner or farmer notifying the NCC when he intends to do something which will damage or destroy the SSSI. That does not happen at the moment. It will only happen under the Bill on 40 or 50, or however many there may be, sites. That is what I mean by notification. The noble Earl is saying notification is the NCC telling owners they have an SSSI and what is important about it. Thatis certainly helpful to the landowners. It is of no help at all towards conserving the SSSI, unless owners simply say, "All right, we will not destroy it". There is no element even of ensuring that there might be negotiation about it. Unless landowners are required to notify the NCC that they are going to damage the site, you do not have any assurance even that there will be voluntary negotiations. At the end of the day you are still left with the designation order. All that does is to ensure that landowners have to notify the NCC that they intend to damage or destroy the site. The only thing the NCC can then do is to compulsorily purchase the site. In other words, the noble Earl's very mild sounding response has not changed at all the position as it currently stands in the Bill.
Viscount Thurso: Before the noble Lord, Lord Craig-ton, replies, I should like to say that I have been thinking very carefully about what has been said, particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, on this side of the Committee, and my noble colleagues. I think I may have been mistaken about the effect of this amendment and that I am not really so far from the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, in what I would like to see done, as I said earlier. I hope that I may now be able to support him if he wishes to push this matter any further.
Lord Underhill: Before Lord Craigton replies, could the noble Earl comment upon the principle contained in the amendment which I have not yet moved, or
322
would he prefer me formally to move it and then make his observations?
The Earl of Avon: Rather than protracting this argument, I would prefer the noble Lord to move the amendment.
Lord Craigton: I am a little bewildered. I am in the hands of the Committee, but as I understand it I am grateful to my noble friend and safe in withdrawing Amendment No. 376, the first amendment, because he has undertaken to comply with the spirit behind it without any reservation: that is, that every owner will be notified of what is worth keeping on his site. If that is so, and if it covers my points, I should be very glad to withdraw the amendment if none of my colleagues wishes otherwise. I should like my noble friend's assurance that that is so.
The Earl of Avon: I can assure my noble friend that those three points which I made in my speech do cover that first amendment, and the Government will be tabling amendments to that effect.
Lord Craigton: I thank my noble friend and I have pleasure in begging leave to withdraw Amendment No. 376.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Wootton of Abinger): Amendment No. 376A. I have to call the attention of the Committee to the fact that if this amendment is agreed to I will not be able to call Amendments Nos. 377 to 383.
5.54 p.m.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 376A:
Page 23, line 37, leave out from beginning to end of line 3 on page 24 and insert—
("(1) Where it appears to the Secretary of State expedient to do so—

(a) in the case of any land to which this paragraph applies, for the purpose of securing the survival in Great Britain of any kind of animal or plant or of complying with an international obligation; or

(b) in the case of any land to which this paragraph applies, for the purpose of conserving any of its flora, fauna, or geological or physiographical features,").

The noble Earl said: I did not mean to stop the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, speaking, and if this amendment is carried I suppose I shall. Perhaps I could clarify his point later.
The purpose of this amendment is to make clear the three conditions, one of which would need to be satisfied before the Secretary of State could make an order requiring notification of destructive or damaging operations. The effect would be to restrict the order-making power to those situations where, first, it was necessary to secure the survival in Great Britian of any kind of species of animal or plant; secondly, to comply with an international obligation; or, thirdly, to conserve any flora, fauna, or geological or physiographical feature of land of national importance.
It would be an offence if any person carried out on land which had been made the subject of an order any operation which appeared to the Secretary of State to be likely to destroy or damage the fauna, flora, or geolo-

323
gical or physiographical features which led to the land being designated and which are specified in the order.
A number of noble Lords have spoken to or have tabled amendments relating to the points covered by this amendment. I hope they will be happy to support the Government's new wording. I beg to move.
Baroness David: We are not very happy about this Government amendment. It seems to redefine the criteria by which sites are selected for the order process, and paragraphs (a) and (b) are later qualified by Amendment No. 387A. In the case of paragraph (b), which is supposed to be a more generous interpretation, Amendment No. 387A deliberately restricts this to sites which are "of national importance". The words in the Bill are, of course, "in the national interest". "Of national importance" is not defined, but we suspect the Government has in mind only the 735 sites published in the Nature Conservation Review, leaving 3,000 SSSIs excluded from the order-making process. We want to have a definition of "national importance", and we feel we must challenge the Government on this point and draw from them the commitment, or not, as the case may be, that all SSSIs are eligible. There does not seem to be any gain from this except that instead of the owner-occupier all persons are now prohibited from carrying out operations under subsection (2)(a).
I was interested, as it happens, to read last night a letter which my noble friend Lady Stedman was sent from the Country Landowners' Association, and which she passed on to me, in which it says:
"It can be said that the present proposals go too far in that the criterion of the national interest as a reason for designation is very vague and questionable. The Government has indicated that only a tiny minority of existing SSSIs would receive the special treatment under this clause. But the national interest could justify a very considerable number of designations in the future."
So, rather naturally, we look on this with a certain amount of suspicion. The Government appear to be narrowing and making the clause worse rather than better; and after all that has been said in the Committee this evening on the previous amendment, rather naturally we are not happy about this one.
Lord Underhill: As has been made quite clear, if this amendment is carried I shall not be able to move Amendment No. 377, on which I said a few brief words earlier. I hope the Government amendment will not be approved; it is only a slight improvement on the proposals in the Bill and in no way moves towards Amendment No. 377, because the Secretary of State will determine which land shall come within the provisions of the clause. We have already heard from the noble Earl that it is a question of selecting the areas of land to be given special protection. What we want to ensure is that the overwhelming majority of these sites will be given some protection. After having designated the limited areas of land, the Secretary of State has the decision—admittedly, after consultation with the NCC—as to whether or not he shall apply protection to that number.
The amendment I tabled, in which a number of noble Lords declared some interest, reverses the whole situation. The provisions of subsection (2) would apply to all sites unless the Secretary of State, after consultation with the NCC, believes that they should
324
be exempted. That seems to be a very sensible way. Therefore, I hope the Government's amendment is not carried, so that I can proceed to move mine.
6 p.m.
The Earl of Avon: First, I should like to respond to the noble Baroness. We were really trying to tidy up this section and not in any way trying to restrict it. She mentioned the words "national interest". Those words were difficult to define and I hope that the words "national importance" give, as it were, a little more flavour. Certainly all SSSIs are eligible for it. Your Lordships may remember that during earlier discussions in the Committee stage we had some arguments about "owners" and "occupiers". For that reason we have put in at present the word "persons". We have no wish whatever to narrow the definition. The aim was to tie it in with conservation.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, mentioned his Amendment No. 377. I think that the noble Lords who have put down this amendment and the Government are at one with the aim of Clause 26. We are aware that our precious nature conservation reserve is being eroded. We want to halt that erosion so far as is reasonable. It is on the method, the mechanics where we differ.
The effect of the noble Lord's amendment would be to apply subsection (2) to all areas of special scientific interest, which have been notified to the local planning authority, I am advised that "notified" is a correct term as the NCC is not required by the 1949 Act to designate, but only to "notify"—except for those which the Secretary of State, after consulting the NCC, has decided should be scheduled. Subsection (2) would also apply to nature reserves declared by the NCC.
The amendment also extends to land declared by the NCC to be a nature reserve. Although I have spoken to this matter once before, it may be helpful if I dispose of the point. Your Lordships will recall that my noble friend Lord Chelwood has put down an amendment which removes the anomaly created in the 1949 Act. The Government are pleased to accept the thought behind the amendment and will be tabling their own amendment to the same effect.
I come back to the amendment in hand. The noble Baroness was kind enough to bring in Amendment No. 387A and I hope that she will not call me to order if I say that I was speaking to Amendment No. 387A as well, and also the consequential Amendments Nos. 402A and 405A. We think that this is a tidying up amendment which has made the clause easier to understand and, therefore, I beg to move.
Lord Middleton: I can assure the noble Baroness, Lady David, that there was nothing sinister about my Amendment No. 381. It was simply to get better drafting, which has now been achieved. I am grateful to the Government.
Baroness David: I think that we are still a little suspicious about the narrowing effects of this Government amendment and we are not satisfied about it. Therefore we shall oppose the amendment.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I do not know whether I am allowed to speak at this stage, but I should like to make one point to the noble Baroness. This amendment describes the conditions that are needed to become what I call a super site of special scientific interest, and I think we are right in that respect. As regards the point that I think the noble Baroness has made, I understand that the NCC grade their sites: 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. I think that there are about 600 Grade I sites. They would in fact fall into this category of a super SSSI. The point that I am trying to make—and I have no doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett knows this—is that there are only 50 of those at risk; the other 550 are not at risk—may I say, thank God!—because of farmers and landowners who are not putting them at risk. So when it is said that there are only 50 that will be covered by the clause, we are, in fact, talking about 600, which is a rather different story. I hope that that encourages the noble Baroness.
Lord Melchett: It certainly does not encourage me. We are talking about 50 or 60 out of the 1,800 SSSIs which we agree are capable of being altered by agriculture, forestry or similar operations. I must say that I find that the amendment imposes a very considerable restriction and I cannot think why the Government have found it necessary to change the words in the Bill if it is not for the purpose of restricting this. The noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, went a long way towards confirming my fears by saying that this would allow these provisions to apply to the Grade 1 SSSIs—in other words, not to the rest—which contradicted what his noble friend on the Front Bench said. I must say that I prefer the interpretation of the amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Stanley.
In the Bill, the criteria to which the provisions can apply are set out as (a), (b) and (c), with no proviso. In the amendment the same or similar words apply, but the reference to the special scientific interest of the land at the beginning of Amendment No. 377 is qualified by the Secretary of State needing to be convinced that it is applicable for various reasons—(a), (b) and (c). In other words, there is a considerable qualification compared to the original wording in the Bill, which we much prefer and which we hope the Committee will agree to retain.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, loves twisting my words a little. Of course these provisions could apply to all the sites of special scientific interest. I was just trying to point out that we are talking about 600 and not 50.
Lord Winstanley: I, too, feel a little uneasy about acquiescing too precipitately in this particular course of action. Perhaps I am a little confused after the lengthy excursions that we made, some time ago into the noble Viscount's bog. I am trying to collect my thoughts. It seems to me that in acquiescing in this amendment we are immediately closing the door on a number of other possibilities on which I would have preferred to indicate my support, such as Amendment No. 377 and so on, which will not be able to be moved. Therefore, I am bound to say that I—and I think some of my noble friends on these Benches—would side with
326
the noble Baroness in feeling a little uneasy about acquiescing in this particular amendment because it closes the door on other possiblities, and, like the noble Baroness, I think that it narrows things somewhat rather than the reverse.
The Earl of Avon: I can only say that it is certainly not the Government's intention to narrow it. Certainly all SSSIs are there, and obviously we prefer this amendment to what was in the Bill previously or we should not have tabled it. The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, made a point about (a), (b) and (c). I agree that the older form looks more simple, and I am afraid the form of the present amendment is the work of the parliamentary draftsman.
6.8 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 376A) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 96; Not-Contents, 70.

CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Auckland, L.

Mancroft, L.

Avon, E.

Margadale, L.

Balerno, L.

Marley, L.

Bellwin, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Belstead, L.

Mersey, V.

Bolton, L.

Middleton, L.

Burton, L.

Milverton, L.

Caccia, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Caithness, E.

Monson, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Cathcart, E.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Chelwood, L.

Morris, L.

Colwyn, L.

Moyola, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Newall, L.

Craigavon, V.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Northchurch, B.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

de Clifford, L.

Onslow, E.

De La Warr, E.

Orkney, E.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Penrhyn, L.

Elibank, L.

Portland, D.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Radnor, E.

Enniskillen, E.

Renton, L.

Faithfull, B.

Ridley, V.

Ferrier, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Fortescue, E.

St. Just, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Sandford, L.

Gainford, L.

Sandys, L. [Teller.]

Gibson-Watt, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Gormanston, V.

Soames, L.

Gridley, L.

Spens, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Hanworth, V.

Swansea, L.

Henley, L.

Swinfen, L.

Hives, L.

Terrington, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Teynham, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Tollemache, L.

Inglewood, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Ironside, L.

Trumpington, B.

Kemsley, V.

Vickers, B.

Kinloss, Ly.

Waldegrave, E.

Lauderdale, E.

Westbury, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Windlesham, L.

Long, V.

Wise, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Yarborough, E.

Lyell, L.

327

NOT-CONTENTS

Ampthill, L.

Hughes, L.

Avebury, L.

Hunt, L.

Aylestone, L.

Jacobson, L.

Bacon, B.

Jacques, L.

Banks, L.

Jeger, B.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Kaldor, L.

Beswick, L.

Kennet, L.

Birk, B.

Kilbracken, L.

Blease, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Blyton, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Boothby, L.

Longford, E.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Melchett, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Northfield, L.

Chorley, L.

Peart, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Phillips, B.

Collison, L.

Robbins, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Rochester, L.

Craigton, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Crowther-Hunt, L.

Rugby, L.

Cudlipp, L.

St. Davids, V.

David, B.

Seear, B.

Davies of Leek, L.

Segal, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Shinwell, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Stone, L.

Foot, L.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Galpern, L.

Underhill, L.

Garner, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L. [Teller.]

Gibson, L.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Whaddon, L.

Gosford, E.

White, B.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Wigoder, L.

Gregson, L.

Winstanley, L.

Hale, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Hampton, L.

Young of Darlington, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
[Amendment No. 375 and not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: we pass to Amendment No. 384.
Lord Craigton: Do we not discuss Amendment No. 378?
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Amendment No. 378 is obliterated by what we have just done.
Lord Craigton: Amendment No. 378 is on an entirely different subject; it is about marine reserves.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: The instructions are that if Amendment No. 376A is carried, it deletes everything down to Amendment No. 383.
Lord Craigton: I believe the instructions must be wrong because I was proposing to move Amendments Nos. 378, 380, 382, 392, 394 and 470, which are all about marine reserves.
The Earl of Avon: With the leave of the Committee, perhaps I might suggest to my noble friend that he could speak to these amendments when we come to Amendment No. 392, and then he can either retable them or withdraw them.
[Amendments Nos. 378 to 383 not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: We pass to Amendment No. 384.
[Amendment No. 384 not moved.]
6.16 p.m.
Lord Renton Lord Renton moved Amendment No. 385:
Page 24, line 5, after ("land") insert ("and such areas shall be known as "sites of special scientific interest"").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 385. It is rather extraordinary that although we are talking about sites of special scientific interest all the time and Clause 26 deals with them, as we see from the side note, there is in fact no reference to such sites in the clause itself. It seemed that we should have some kind of reference to them there, more especially as we are told that they are to become registrable land charges, and I should have thought that when they reach that stage it would be an advantage for the term of art to have been introduced to the statute law.
Therefore, I must confess that this is a rather poor attempt on my part to deal with the matter. I would not expect my drafting to be accepted on this occasion, but at least it gives us an opportunity to consider whether we should not have a reference to such sites, and it gives the Government an opportunity to say whether they will, in the light of what I say, perhaps at the next stage of this Bill introduce even a definition. However, I would just remind your Lordships that in the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, Section 23, and the Countryside Act 1968, Section 15, there is reference to areas of special scientific interest—not "sites", but "areas". It is strange but nobody has called them that in real life, I suppose because the abbreviation would amount to ASSIs. But they are always therefore euphemistically referred to as SSSIs. Let us try to get this right for the sake of clarity. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: There is an amendment to this amendment to which we immediately pass.
Lord Melchettmoved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 385, Amendment No. 385A:
Leave out (""sites of special scientific interest"") and insert (""wildlife conservation areas"").
The noble Lord said. This is a simple amendment. I have much sympathy with everything that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, had to say about clarifying the position, but I hope that we might be able to clarify it without continuing to use the term "sites of special scientific interest". We have already had in your Lordships' debates on this Bill a varying number of S's applied to these particular sites. They are either SSIs or SSSIs, or what have you. I think all of us find the nomenclature extremely confusing. Those outside your Lordships' Committee who might not be quite so familiar with the terminology find the name SSSI even more confusing maybe than some of us do.
My amendment is to suggest that we get rid of the triple SIs and call them "wildlife conservation areas". This Bill, as the Government have reminded us on numerous occasions, is about conservation. It is about the conservation of wildlife as its title says, and I should have thought that this description of the area would be much more readily understood by all those concerned. Certainly the landowners and the farmers who have this designation placed on some of their

329
land might more readily understand what the Nature Conservancy Council was about, and I should have thought that members of the public, when they heard this name rather than SSSI, would have a clearer understanding of the designation.
May I stress that I am not suggesting any change in the scientific criteria—and nor would that follow from my amendment—which the NCC use to select these sites. The noble Earl described those to us earlier and gave an assurance that they would continue to apply, as I think all of us would want them to. This is trying to make life a little simpler for everyone. I beg to move.
Baroness White: May I ask my noble friend if he can tell me what happens then to the sites of geological or physiographical features of which there are about seven or eight?
Lord Melchett: I must confess that that was not a point I had thought of, and I apologise to my noble friend for not having done so. A simple description might be applied to those sites similar to what I am suggesting for wildlife areas. In other words, we might get rid of the SSGI, or whatever the nomenclature is for those sites, and have something like a geological conservation area, which would be fairly straightforward. It would not need a large amendment when we come to Report stage.
The Earl of Avon: May I say a word about the amendment of my noble friend before moving on to Lord Melchett's amendment? The difficulty about "site of special scientific interest" is that it is a term used by, among others, local planning authorities, water authorities, and conservation movements. To use the term solely for those areas which have been designated by an order made by my right honourable friend would, we think, cause considerable confusion.
Moving on to what the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, said, we are happy with the noble Lord's general suggestion and we think it would be helpful to have some easily recognisable term to identify these areas. We did not think that "wildlife" was sufficiently embracing, as it conjures up pictures of animals and plants. But for orders to cover areas which are important not for wildlife in that sense but perhaps for geological features as well, the name that the Government want to put forward—and it is no more than what we are putting forward—is "nature conservation order", which might fit this particular term. We should like to give this further consideration, and I hope that, with that undertaking, the noble Lord will see fit to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Renton: I am much obliged to my noble friend. What he has in mind may well produce a fruitful result, and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Melchett: I am not sure that I do not have to withdraw my amendment to the amendment first. I was delighted with what the noble Earl said. It seems a pity that the Government are prepared to be so accommodating on these points of little substance while we are going to continue to preside over the
330
destruction of whatever we call these sites at the rate of at least 10 per cent. a year. Still, I must not be churlish. I am grateful to the noble Earl. I take it that he meant to say "wildlife nature conservation area" rather than "nature conservation order", which was what I heard him say, but I hope he may be able to confirm that before I withdraw my amendment so that I have it on the record.
The Earl of Avon: I actually said "order", but I think "area" would be much better.
Lord Melchett: I am grateful to the noble Earl. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment to amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Renton: I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 386 not moved.]
Baroness David Baroness David had given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 387:
Page 24, line 9, at end insert—
("( ) In the case of any land which in the opinion of the Council is of special interest by reason of its flora, fauna,or geological or physiographical features the Council shall notify the owner or occupier of the scientific criteria used for selecting such areas of special interest.").
The noble Baroness said: As Amendment No. 376 was accepted, it will cover this, so I shall not move my amendment.
[Amendment No. 387 not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Amendment No. 387A. If Amendment No. 387A is agreed to, I shall not be able to call Amendments Nos. 388 and 389.
6.25 p.m.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 387A:
Page 24, line 10, leave out from beginning to end of line 15 and insert—
("(1A) Paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (1) apply to any land which in the opinion of the Secretary of State is—

(a) of special interest; and

(b) in the case of paragraph (b) of that subsection, of national importance,

by reason of any of its flora, fauna, or geological or physiographical features.
(2) Subject to subsection (2A), no person shall carry out on any land to which this subsection applies any operation which—

(a) appears to the Secretary of State to be likely to destroy or damage the flora, fauna, or geological or physiographical features by reason of which the land is land to which paragraph (a) or, as the case may be, paragraph (b) of subsection (1) applies; and

(b) is specified in the order applying this subsection to the land.

(2A) Subsection (2) shall not apply in relation to any operation carried out, or caused or permitted to be carried out, by the owner or occupier of the land if—").
The noble Earl said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Melchett: Would it be wise for me to speak to Amendment No. 389 while we debate Amendment No. 387A? If the Committee is agreeable, I should like to speak to Amendment No. 389. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, or the

331
noble Lord, Lord Stanley, or their colleagues wish to speak to Amendment No. 388. If we are going to cover those two amendments with this one, it might be sensible to take them in numerical order.
Lord Middleton: I was not going to speak at any length to Amendment No. 388, simply to say that the point raised by that amendment and Amendments Nos. 392, 395 and 396 would all be met by the Government's amendment because it is a redrafting which would take them all into account.
Lord Melchett: I should like to say a word about Amendment No. 389, which raises an important point of principle but it is by nature of a probing amendment, and with it goes Amendment No. 436. It has been brought to my attention that there are major problems in some areas, rather in contradiction to what the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, said earlier, where areas have been declared sites of special scientific interest, or indeed are nature reserves owned by local naturalist trusts. The trust that has brought this to my attention is the Norfolk Naturalist Trust, of which I am a member of the council, and to that extent I should declare an interest in the problem.
I have in mind particularly Brayden Marshes and Martham Broad in North-East Norfolk, which are probably the finest wetland sites in the whole of England, and indeed one of England's seven sites designated as a wetland area of international importance under the Ramsar Convention; but despite that rather resounding title these sites are being dramatically ruined by drainage schemes which are carried out by local internal drainage boards and financed by the Ministry of Agriculture.
The problem is that the drainage schemes are not on these internationally important sites themselves but on adjoining land. The Martham Broad has a scheme near it which is currently discharging large quantities of silt and fertilisers into one of the few broads left, or lakes and broadland left, which have relatively pure water, and tenders for a second pump, which would increase the flow into the broad, have just been sent out.
Brayden Marshes, which is criss-crossed with a number of ditches and a particularly good haunt for bitterns—one of our rarest birds—is more or less completely destroyed. The ditches are filled with silt and the bitterns will probably starve this year. That has happened in the space of three years from a pump which could easily have had its output diverted into safer waters had anybody been consulted on the conservation side. Again the Ramsar site is probably destroyed, or very largely destroyed, from a wild life point of view.
Both those cases are illustrations of the problems which arise when works are carried out adjoining a nature reserve, in this case two of our most important wetland sites. This is not any sort of conservation versus farmer dispute. In one, if not both, of these cases a number of local farmers have been extremely upset at what has happened, and particularly the farming tenants of the Norfolk Naturalist Trust feel that their farming activities have been severely jeopardised by the actions of neighbours without any consultation
332
and certainly without any agreement. In a Written Answer to the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley (at column 1280 on 18th December of last year) the noble Earl, Lord Avon, said that 11 of the key sites—that is, the sites listed in the Nature Conservation Review—had been damaged as an indirect consequence of other agricultural or forestry activities.
I hope I have said enough to describe the sort of problems the amendment is aimed at. The objective is to ensure that people should not carry out operations near a site designated under Clause 26 in a way that would destroy it. The amendment is accompanied by a necessary amendment to the schedule to ensure that orders were served and neighbouring landowners were informed that they should not carry out operations which would affect a designated site. I hope the amendment will commend itself to the Government, even though I will not be in a position to move it in Committee and will have to return to it on Report.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I should point out that Amendment No. 387A pre-empts everything down to No. 395A. If any noble Lord wishes to say a word arising out of those, as we have already strayed into Amendments Nos. 388 and 389, an opportunity should be left to do so, otherwise I will put the Question.
The Earl of Avon: Perhaps I might just say in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, that we accept this in principal and will consider tabling an amendment along the lines of this point.
Lord Melchett: I am grateful to the noble Earl. We are making marvellous progress, a little late in the day, I am afraid, for some of us, and I look forward to seeing the Government's amendment on that point.
Lord Craigton: I am wondering whether I will be in order, bearing in mind my Amendments Nos. 462 and 470, to raise the subject of marine reserves.
The Earl of Avon: From the Government's point of view, that would be perfectly in order, if the Committee so agrees.
Amendment No. 387A agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 396 to 400 not moved.]
6.35 p.m.
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 401:
For galley 52—
Page 24, line 30, at end insert—
("( ) Where the Council receives notice of a proposal to carry out an operation and paragraph (b) of the previous subsection does not apply, the Council shall—

(a) publish notice of the proposal in two successive weeks in a newspaper or newspapers circulating in the area in which the land is situated on which it is proposed in the notice to carry out the operation, and, not earlier than the day following that on which the first publication of the notice is completed in pursuance of the preceding provisions of this paragraph, to publish such a notice in the London Gazette; and

(b) consider any written representations relating to the proposal which are made to the Council by any person within the period of three weeks beginning with the date on which the notice of the proposal is published in the London Gazette, and the Council shall not give consent in pursuance of paragraph (a) of the previous subsection before expiration of such period.").

The noble Lord said: The operations which may be proposed to be carried out in SSSIs and nature reserves are matters of concern not only to the owner or occupier and the NCC but to the general public as well. On Second Reading a number of noble Lords expressed concern at the fact that the designation of sites did not receive sufficient publicity, and that is true not only of proposed alterations to an SSSI or NNR as a result of any operations that may be carried out. The amendment seeks to rectify that situation and says that where the condition of subsection (3)(b) does not apply—that is, where there is an agreement, the terms of which cover the proposed operations—the NCC must publish notice of the proposal in two successive weeks in a local newspaper and must also publish the proposal in the London Gazette. If the NCC is considering giving consent to the operations, it must not do so until after a period of three weeks from the date the notice is published in the London Gazette, and the NCC must then give serious consideration to any representations that may be received during that period of three weeks.
This is a small but important amendment because the publication of the notice and the opportunity for any person to make representations will enable the fullest consideration to be given to proposals which may involve the damage or destruction of these important sites to us nationally, and I hope the Government will accept the spirit of the amendment.
Lord Burton: Does the noble Lord want this to apply to Scotland? If so, is he aware that it should also be published in the Edinburgh Gazette?
The Earl of Avon: The intention of the amendment is to give publicity locally and nationally to an individual's intention to change the way in which he is currently using his land. It will become a requirement for the Nature Conservancy Council to publish notices in the local papers on two successive weeks and in the London Gazette—or, should it be applicable the Edinburgh Gazette—once they receive notice of the owner's or occupier's intention. Effectively, they would not be able to give the owner their written consent to the operations until three weeks had elapsed from the date that the London Gazette carried the notice of the proposal, which at the earliest would be three weeks and one day after the date when the notice first appeared in the local papers.
We may argue that a delay of three weeks is neither here nor there when we are talking about actions which could materially affect the scientific interest of a site which has already been recognised as of considerable importance to the country and requiring protection, and I think we would agree. But the purpose of a notice is presumably to alert local people or national organisations to what is proposed. They would have the opportunity to make written representations to the Nature Conservancy Council and the council would have a duty to consider them. I am not convinced that this duty is necessary or that the amendment strengthens in any way the protection of an important site.
An order covered by Clause 26 will be made by the Secretary of State after he has consulted the council.
334
The council will have provided the advice on which his action is based and will have included details about the operations which could prove damaging. They will have a very good idea about what can be done without detriment to the scientific interest. If they are in doubt once they had been notified of its owner's intentions, I am sure that they would in the normal course of affairs actively seek outside expert advice and move quickly to do so. I do not think their actions, unless they are sure the proposal will have no adverse effect, should be circumscribed by a requirement to wait for written representations, which may or may not materialise Such a delay, even such a slight one as threee weeks, if it can be considered, should be. As the noble Lord will be aware from my reply, we hope he will not feel it necessary to press the amendment.
Lord Melchett: May I, without urging my noble friend to press the amendment at this stage, press the noble Earl to go a little further? I take his point about the possibility of delay, particularly if the NCC is required to wait for written replies which do not come. However, would the Minister address himself to the principle of the matter a little further?
It seems to me important that the NCC should maintain at least a public register of notifications. Regional offices would possibly be the best places for that, so that people who were interested locally would be able to find out what was happening. Perhaps going as far as inserting advertisements in the London Gazette, or the Edinburgh Gazette—I certainly take the point of the noble Lord, Lord Burton, about the Edinburgh Gazette; what an important omission that was from our amendment!—would not be the best way of achieving the result that we want. However, I should have thought that it would be possible for the NCC in its regional offices to keep a list of notifications that it has received under the clause.
At a regional level the NCC would be in very close touch with regional representatives of the major voluntary organisations, such as the RSPB, and with the local county trusts, as well as the major national voluntary organisations that would be taking an interest in the matter. It does not seem to me that the proposal would involve a great deal of work. It would not involve any delay—which seemed to be the noble Earl's major problem about the current amendment. If my noble friend is disposed to withdraw the amendment, will the noble Earl agree to take away that particular point, look at it, and perhaps write to us in due course?
The Earl of Avon: I very much take the point that the noble Lord has made. Thinking through the matter as he was speaking, I wondered whether the Nature Conservancy Council itself might read about it and take it on board. Perhaps the point does not require legislation in this particular Bill, but I shall certainly think about it.
Lord Melchett: I am sure that if the Nature Conservancy Council gave an assurance that such registers would be kept, that would be an ideal solution, and it would save us all some time.
Lord Underhill: I am grateful to the noble Earl for his proposal, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 402 not moved.]
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 402A:
Page 24, line 34, leave out ("(2)") and insert ("(2A)").
The noble Earl said: I have already spoken to this amendment, which is consequential. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 403 not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Jacques): I now call Amendment No. 404. If this amendment is agreed to, I shall not be able to call Amendments Nos. 405 and 405A.
6.42 p.m.
Lord Craigton Lord Craigton moved Amendment No. 404:
Page 24, line 43, leave out subsection (5) and insert—
("(5) If it appears to the Council that any agreement specified in subsection (4) is unlikely to be reached before the expiration of the period mentioned in paragraph (c) of subsection (3), or that paragraph as it has effect by virtue of subsection (4), the Council may make application to the Secretary of State for an order under subsection (1) to be made on the day upon which that period expires which may prohibit the operations specified in the notice under subsection (2).").
The noble Lord said. This amendment is an improvement on the present paragraph. With my wording, if an agreement is hanging fire, the Nature Conservancy Council can have an order made by the Secretary of State to prohibit work on a permanent basis with compensation, but the order can be revoked. Under the present clause, if the agreement is hanging fire, the only recourse is to invoke compulsory purchase, or to let the site be destroyed. I believe that this proposal might find some approval in the noble Earl's mind. I should be very glad to know what he has to say, and I beg to move.
The Earl of Avon: The Government have not really considered this particular proposition in isolation from the package originally presented by my noble friend. However, I undertake to consider this addition as a separate matter and then let my noble friend know the solution.
Lord Craigton: I am very grateful to the noble Earl, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Craigton Lord Craigton moved Amendment No. 405:
Page 24, line 45, after ("subsection (4)") insert ("and only in relation to land more than 10 acres in extent").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 405 I wish at the same time to speak to Amendments Nos. 406, 408 and 461. We have here a very important point, bearing in mind that we have not really made the progress that we had hoped to make on the whole question of SSSIs. Had we had a more co-operative reply from the Front Bench, I would have had to con-
336
sider whether to move this amendment, but now I am quite certain that it must be moved.
I have twice raised this point in your Lordships' Chamber. Under the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, Part IV, the Secretary of State compiles a list of buildings of special architectural and historic interest—just the same as SSSIs. Upon including such a building in the list, he serves on the owner or occupier a notice, and then if the person responsible executes any work that would in any manner affect the character of the building, and the work was not authorised, that person is guilty of an offence.
Under Section 2 of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979 the same provisions apply. The Secretary of State compiles a list and informs the owner that his monument is on the list—and for "monument" or "ancient building" read "SSSI". Thereafter, the owner is guilty of an offence if he carries out any unauthorised work on the monument or ancient building or undertakes any flooding or tipping operations in, or under, the land.
There are many SSSIs that are equally worth preserving as ancient monuments or historic buildings. They would not be SSSIs at all unless they concerned something of great value to the nation. As we have heard this evening, many, though by no means all, SSSIs occupy comparatively large plots of land. They compete, in greater or lesser degree, with claims of agriculture, forestry, planning and recreation. Those are completely excluded from my amendment, which covers only an SSSI of an area of 10 acres or less. I have suggested 10 acres, but even that may be too big an area.
I cannot for the life of me see the difference in common sense between an SSSI, an historic building, or an ancient monument. The owner of an SSSI has part of our heritage which should be preserved, and he is as proud of, or as annoyed about, having been asked to preserve it as he now is in regard to his historic building or ancient monument. He can ask no more and no less restriction or compensation. The Acts of 1971 and 1979 already demonstrate that their provisions, which I have copied in my Amendment No. 461, are workable. These are Acts that are on the statute book and are working. Certainly I create two classes of SSSIs, but why not?—there are five schedules of them now. They are easily distinguished by size, which is the only limiting factor. Certainly I create an arbitrary maximum size, but what would matter would be the actual size within that limit.
We have in the amendment a simple, workable alternative, and it would be cheaper, too, because there would be no recourse to compulsory purchase. I do not believe that the Minister is going to accept this proposal, but I would ask the Committee to decide whether it is not completely workable and whether we should not treat the smallest SSSIs as ancient monuments or historic buildings. I beg to move.
Viscount Thurso: I do not think that this proposal will be received with enthusiasm in the crofting counties. There are hundreds and thousands of crofts of 10 acres or less. If people felt that the whole of their croft might suddenly be adversely affected by an SSSI and that their extra livelihood as a crofter was going to be affected, they would be very upset—
Lord Craigton: Will the noble Viscount tell me whether there are now SSSIs on crofts?
Viscount Thurso: There is a croft at Newlands of Geise just outside Thurso, and through the bottom half of the three arable fields on that croft there runs the main drainage from Thurso golf course. There is an area there of less than 10 acres which has been declared an SSSI in order to preserve such rare species as ragged robin and meadowsweet. If one looks at the Ordnance Survey map, one sees running through the middle two parallel lines with the word "drain" written alongside. This area has been declared the Newlands of Geise mire. That land really ought to be drained, and that drain ought to be in course of being cleared in the national interest and in the interest of everybody else. Indeed, the crofter in question has been trying to improve this land from an agricultural point of view, and when I objected to this site I discovered that the boundary had in fact been drawn round an area which the crofter had previously reseeded. So in the first instance they were proposing to designate as an SSSI an area which had already been reseeded.
Lord Craigton: The noble Viscount is a great purveyor of red herrings. By the same rule, I believe—I am almost sure—that many of the crofts are historic buildings already; and they are not allowed to alter them without permission. That does not cause any trouble but preserves them for what they are—part of the history of Britain. I am wanting to do the same thing in regard to SSSIs.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My crofters, provided they get enough money, are prepared to do anything.
Lord Melchett: I must say that our initial feeling on this side of the Committee was not to agree with the amendment set down in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, and the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, because it seemed to us that it would cause a difficulty and would exclude some of the most important sites of special scientific interest that we have in this country. But the Government's extraordinarily unsatisfactory reply to the amendment moved earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, has left me feeling that anything we can get from them we must take, because theyclearly have absolutely no intention, off their own bat, unless your Lordships can persuade them on Report, of doing anything to protect most of the sites of special scientific interest in this country. We are, therefore, in the words of the Nature Conservancy Council's chief scientist, going to see large-scale extinction of British species by the end of this century. That seems to me the sum result of what the Government have said on Clause 26 so far—large-scale extinction of British species.
The noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, has told us about another SSSI on his land and the circumstances, as he sees them, in which it has been declared. I would simply make one point to him. The faster that landowners destroy the best sites—the raised bogs and other things which he has mentioned on earlier amendments—the faster those things which are left which are of special scientific interest will be areas which were, for example,
338
once drained but are now no longer. They should not, in any country which has any pride in its wildlife, be sites of special scientific interest; but if we succeed in destroying these sites at the rate at which we are destroying them now, we are inevitably going to be a country of second best sites of special scientific interest. But that is the fault of the people who destroy the top tier of sites, not that of the Nature Conservancy Council.
But, as I have said, I think that the response to any proposals to improve Clause 26 has been so abysmal up to this stage that the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, has a great deal of merit and we shall certainly support him to the full.
The Earl of Avon: I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has behaved a little like a chameleon, because a little while ago he was pleased with me but now he has changed. However, I should like to bring the Committee back to discuss this particular amendment slightly more dispassionately than the whole of Clause 26, because what we do not want to do is to put on the NCC a task which it would be difficult for them to carry out. I take my noble friend's point that some things happen to ancient monuments and historic buildings, and, therefore, why should not small SSSIs be treated in the same way? The answer is that they have got to become an SSSI at some time, and I think they ought to become it directly they are not an ancient monument. This may sound a strange remark, but later on, in the case of some of the amendments set down, I shall be referring to the ancient monuments in regard to some of the points raised. We honestly believe that it is difficult to justify one mechanism for large areas and another for small areas, because our aim is to protect all areas of special scientific interest, whether large or small.
However, we also think that the amendments might not quite have the effect that the noble Lord intends. The proposed subsection (5)(a) does not state that subsection (2) is not to have effect in relation to land of less than 10 acres until notice has been served by the Secretary of State. Also, the amendment to subsection (5) would, assuming that Amendment No. 461 was carried, appear to have no effect, because that amendment would prevent compulsory purchase orders relating to land measuring less than 10 acres from being made by the council.
I fully sympathise with what my noble friend is trying to do, but I do not believe that this will be very easy for the Nature Conservancy Council to handle, and I would rather wish that my noble friend Lord Chelwood was here to give me little support on that. Having so said, I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw this amendment.
Lord Melchett: The noble Earl puts a lot of stress on what the Nature Conservancy Council could or could not do.
The Earl of Avon: What they would want to do.
Lord Melchett: I think the noble Earl said it was whether or not they would be able to carry out the effect of the amendment, and as I heard him from a sedentary position he added, "What they would like

339
to do". I just wonder why it is that the noble Earl has not told your Lordships at any stage yet in our debate what the chariman of the Nature Conservancy Council said yesterday, when he said:
"In order to protect these increasingly threatened wildlife habitats"—
that is, sites of special scientific interest—
"the NCC is calling for prior notification of activities inimical to nature conservation for all SSSIs".
That is what the Nature Conservancy Council are asking for, and the Government, as I understand it, have turned us down flat on that. It therefore seems to me very right and proper that the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, should press this amendment.
Lord Craigton: I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, that this gives complete protection at the least possible cost, which is very important. I believe the Nature Conservancy Council would be able to administer it, and I shall press this amendment.
6.56 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 405) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 55; Not-Contents, 84.

CONTENTS

Avebury, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Aylestone, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Bacon, B.

Jacques, L.

Banks, L.

Jeger, B.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Beswick, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Birk, B.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Blease, L.

Melchett, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Milverton, L.

Collison, L.

Northfield, L.

Craigton, L. [Teller.]

Peart, L.

David, B.

Phillips, B.

Davies of Leek, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Rochester, L.

Foot, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Galpern, L.

Seear, B.

Gibson, L.

Stone, L.

Gosford, E.

Thurso, V.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Tryon, L.

Gregson, L.

Underhill, L. [Teller.]

Hale, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Hampton, L.

White, B.

Hanworth, V.

Wigoder, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Winstanley, L.

Hooson, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

Hunt, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Craigavon, V.

Auckland, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Avon, E.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Balerno, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Bellwin, L.

de Clifford, L.

Belstead, L.

De La Warr, E.

Bolton, L.

De L'Isle, V.

Boston, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Elibank, L.

Burton, L.

Enniskillen, E.

Caithness, E.

Faithfull, B.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Ferrier, L.

Cathcart, E.

Fortescue, E.

Chelwood, L.

Gainford, L.

Colwyn, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Gormanston, V.

340

Gridley, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Onslow, E.

Orkney, E.

Henley, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Hives, L.

Radnor, E.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Renton, L.

Inglewood, L.

Ridley, V.

Ironside, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Kemsley, V.

St. Just, L.

Killearn, L.

Sandys, L. [Teller.]

Kinnaird, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Soames, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Long, V.

Strathclyde, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Swansea, L.

Lyell, L.

Swinfen, L.

Mancroft, L.

Tollemache, L.

Margadale, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Marley, L.

Trenchard, V.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Trumpington, B.

Mersey, V.

Waldegrave, E.

Middleton, L.

Westbury, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Windlesham, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Wise, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Yarborough, E.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Young, B.

Northchurch, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
House resumed.

European Assembly Elections Bill
7.5 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretray of State, Home Office (Lord Belstead): My Lords, I beg to move that the European Assembly Elections Bill be now read a second time. This is both a short Bill and, I hope, a straightforward one. It comprises one substantive clause, amending part of the second schedule to the European Assembly Elections Act 1978. The purpose of the Bill is to relieve the three Parliamentary Boundary Commissions for Great Britain of the obligation to submit simultaneously with a report on Westminster constituencies a report on European Parliament constituencies.
As your Lordships will know, the rules which govern the operation of the four Parliamentary Boundary Commissions for the United Kingdom are set out in the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Acts of 1949 and 1958. These require each Commission to submit to the Secretary of State a general report on the constituencies within its area of responsibility between 10 and 15 years after the submission of its previous report. All four Commissions reported last during the first half of 1969. Accordingly, each must report again during 1984—by April 1984 for the English and Scottish Commissions, by May 1984 in the case of the Welsh Commission and by June 1984 in the case of the Northern Ireland Commission. I should like to emphasise that this Bill does not alter that statutory time limit. Indeed, there is nothing in the Bill which would change any aspect of the Boundary Commissions' work in reviewing constituencies for the Westminster Parliament.
When a Parliamentary Boundary Commission completes a report within the time laid down in the statute, the Secretary of State is required to lay it

341
before Parliament. He submits the report, except where it recommends no alteration to constituencies, with a draft of an Order in Council giving effect, with or without modifications, to the recommendations. The Secretary of State must state his reasons for any modifications he proposes. The 1949 Act, to which I have referred, specified that the orders must be laid before Parliament "as soon as may be" after a Boundary Commission has submitted a report. In other words, there should be no unreasonable delay. This procedure ought to be a straightforward one. I have no doubt that the Boundary Commissions, consonant with their statutory duties and responsibilities, complete their work, involving the publication of provisional recommendations, considering representations, and, if necessary, holding inquiries before submitting final recommendations, as soon as they are able to do so. And certainly I can repeat assurances given both in this House and elsewhere that my right honourable friends the respective Secretaries of State, for their part, will present the reports of the Boundary Commissions to Parliament without any delay. But there was introduced in the provisions of the European Assembly Elections Act 1978, an impediment into the workings of the Boundary Commissions in Great Britain which prejudices the swift implementation of Boundary Commission recommendations.
The 1978 Act obliges a Boundary Commission to submit simultaneously with a report on Westminster constituencies, a supplementary report on European Parliament constituencies. European Parliament constituencies, as your Lordships will know, are formed from whole Westminster constutuencies. No Westminster constituency may be divided between European Parliament constituencies. The effect of the provisions in the 1978 Act is therefore that, instead of a commission submitting its report on Westminster constituencies to the Secretary of State immediately on completion of the work, it has to set the whole matter aside for the period that it takes to formulate the consequential recommendations for the European Parliament constituencies.
The best estimate is that the delay that this procedure causes would amount to about 12 to 15 months. While a delay of this type in the submission of a report naturally is to be regretted, noble Lords may of course ask whether this is the price which has to be paid for an arrangement which was provided by the 1978 Act.
The answer to that question, my Lords, is twofold. First, as I have said, European Parliament constituencies are formed from whole Westminster constituencies. Logic therefore seems to us to demand that the review of European constituencies—which in practice has been shown to be consequential to and not simultaneous with the review of Westminster constituencies—should be based on the settled units of established Westminster constituencies.
I suggest that a great deal of possible trouble can be avoided if the two sets of reviews are conducted separately, one after the other. But the 1978 Act requires the commissions to build the proposed European Parliament constituencies from proposed Westminster constituencies and submit the two sets of proposals simultaneously. If the recommendations for Westminster constituency boundaries were altered, even slightly, during the course of the parliamentary
342
proceedings, when the orders are being looked at in the House of Commons and in your Lordships' House, this in turn would invalidate a whole series of recommendations for the European boundaries. As the redrawing of one European Parliament boundary inevittably affects its neighbours, there might have to be a wholesale revision of the original recommendations for European Parliament constituencies. It seems far more sensible for the two sets of boundary reviews to be conducted separately one after the other. The two processes are independent in practice and, if this Bill meets your Lordships' approval, will be independent and separate in law.
My Lords, the second reason why the new procedure in this Bill is more appropriate is because of the gross and well-known disparities which presently exist between the electorates of different Westminster parliamentary constituencies. I should like to illustrate that briefly by reference to the office of Population Censuses and Surveys Monitor, EL 80/2, published on 20th May 1980, a copy of which is in the Library of the House. This monitor indicates that in England alone there are 11 constituencies with more than 100,000 electors, while, at the other end of the scale, there are 14 constituencies with fewer than 40,000 electors. There are also—if I may put it another way—in England alone 58 constituencies where the number of electors on the register exceeds the electoral quota—the average number of electors per constituency—by more than 30 per cent. At the other end of the scale, there are 38 constituencies in England in which the number of electors on the register is more than 30 per cent. below the electoral quota. In 14 of these it is more than 40 per cent. below; and, in five, the electorate is less than half the electoral quota.
These discrepancies have arisen out of perfectly natural movements of population. But their consequences are most detrimental to the principle of fairness and equality of representation. In order to ensure some continuity of representation, the boundary reviews are only implemented at lengthy intervals. But I put it to your Lordships that, in the interests of democracy and fairness, it is not right to extend the time which is taken for constituencies to be reviewed. Our objection to the 1978 Act, which was introduced, incidentally, after the Parliamentary Boundary Commission for England had given notice of their intention to review constituencies in England, is that it was bound to lengthen the whole procedure without any obvious gain.
So far as parliamentary constituencies are concerned, this Bill reverts to the procedures which existed before the 1978 Act. The substantive provisions of our Bill are contained in subsections (1), (2) and (3) of Clause 1. Having removed certain spent provisions relating to the initial truncated procedure for dividing Great Britain into European Parliament constituencies, which only refer to the 1979 election, these substitute a requirement that once an Order in Council has been made under the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act 1949, following a review of Westminster constituencies, the appropriate Parliamentary Boundary Commission will thereupon review the European Parliament constituencies and, as soon as may be, submit recommendations on those to the Secretary of State. We believe that this procedure, taking the reviews one after the other, provides a firm base on which the

343
commissions may do their work.
When the Government began to consider this matter, I think the House will wish to know, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary sought the views of the Parliamentary Boundary Commission for England. The deputy chairman told us that the separation of the two procedures for Westminster and European boundaries proposed in this Bill would be very welcome to members of his commission.
I believe that it is widely recognised in this House and elsewhere that the Boundary Commissions have an extremely difficult task. I think that it will be widely agreed also that the Parliamentary Boundary Commissions in the past have carried out their remit with skill and judgment. I have no doubt that they will continue to do so. The purpose of this Bill is to assist them in their task, by relieving them of a cumbersome and unnecessary procedure. The Bill, if enacted, will also help to ensure that the implementation of the Parliamentary Boundary Commissions' reports into constituencies in Great Britain are not unduly delayed, and that the effectiveness of their reports is not undermined by the passage of time. I beg to move this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Belstead.)
7.18 p.m.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, has, as is always customary from him, explained this Bill in a very clear and fair way. I want to make it quite clear on behalf of these Benches that we accept that the other place has passed a principle and therefore we accept that situation. Having said that, there are a number of points which we wish to put forward and we hope that we shall get the Government's view on them.
When the 1978 European Assembly Elections Bill was before Parliament, it had at that time the full support of the then Conservative Opposition. Their spokesman on that occasion was none other than Mr. William Whitelaw, the present Home Secretary, who introduced this present Bill in the other place. Schedule 2 to the 1978 Act is quite clear in setting out that in future when a Boundary Commission for any part of Great Britain submitted a report containing recommendations for the United Kingdom parliamentary constituencies, it would be accompanied by a supplementary report with regard to the European Assembly constituencies. The question must be asked: Why has the Conservative Party changed its view on that provision? So far as I can see from reading the Official Report of the debates, that met with no criticism whatever when it was introduced in 1978. It seemed to be accepted on all sides that it was sensible to submit reports for both United Kingdom parliamentary and European Assembly constituencies at the same time.
During 1980 the Government were pressed repeatedly about the progress of the work of the Parliamentary Boundary Commissions. There appeared to be satisfaction expressed by Government Ministers that the commissions would meet the target. As far back as 27th March, 1980, a Home Office Minister stated in another place that he could well understand and appreciate the view that it is perhaps an unnecessary
344
requirement for reports on both the United Kingdom and European reviews to be submitted together. Later on it was stated that the Government were giving consideration to a possible change. That was 27th March, 1980, and subsequently.
Two years after the passing of the 1978 Act the Government consider that a change is desirable. We must ask why. Also, why did the Government vacillate for eight months from March—when the question was raised with them, they said they were looking into the matter—before introducing this Bill? Yet they now plead that there is some urgency, as without this Bill the Boundary Commission for the parliamentary constituencies might not otherwise be able to keep to the targets they wish to keep to in the light of the next general election.
On 2nd December 1980 in another place on Second Reading the Home Secretary said that this present Bill would provide a more logical and acceptable basis for the future work of the commissions. He also referred to the provision that both sets of recommendations had to be submitted together as an impediment which had been introduced, as he said at col. 427,
"quite unnecessarily and unjustifiably in my view".
But that is not what the right honourable gentleman said when the Bill was introduced into Parliament in 1978. He now says it is, in his view, an impediment introduced unnecessarily and unjustifiably; yet in 1978 the European Assembly Elections Bill was accepted apparently with very little criticism, and certainly not along those lines. What was considered to be satisfactory two years previously is now said to be illogical and unacceptable. Naturally I must ask why.
We all knew there were going to be disparities. There were disparities in the United Kingdom parliamentary constituencies. One must pose the question, although I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, will wish to comment on it, but there must be some feeling about the disparities in electorates because they have to be straightened out. I wonder whether the enthusiasm for separating the two reviews, rather than keeping them together, as was regarded as essential two years ago, has something to do with estimates made by various political commentators as to the gain in seats there might be for the Conservative Party as a result of redistribution.
At what stage did the Government decide that the uncoupling of the United Kingdom and European reports was necessary? Why, apart from the point mentioned, did they consider it to be necessary? In the same speech to which I have referred, Mr. William Whitelaw said on 3rd December in another place at col. 428:
"Such a procedure could only be justified if it were thought that there was an overwhelming need to interlink recommendations made for parliamentary and European Parliament constituencies so that the boundaries were … coterminous".
He said there was no such need. I repeat: that was not what was said when the 1978 Bill was introduced. In fact the 1978 Act provides that no parliamentary constituency shall be spread over more than one European constituency, and, so far as I can see, that criterion is not changed by the Bill now before us. Therefore, it is still desirable that the boundaries of European and parliamentary constituencies should be coterminous, except that I understand that the 1978

345
Bill provided that the constituencies used for the first election could be used at the next election, a long as the provision was not superseded by Orders in Council.
The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, has said that the parliamentary constituencies are the blocks on which the European constituencies are built. If this Bill is approved, there will be instance where the proposed new parliamentary constituencies will have parts in more than one European constituency. Therefore there will be cases where the criteria laid down in the 1978 European Assembly Elections Act will be breached. In effect the Government are proposing that the Boundaries Commissions shall make the best of it so far as the European constituencies are concerned.
It would seem that the Government do not envisage any review of the present European constituencies in time for the next European elections. Thus the existing European constituencies may continue until the subsequent European elections in 1989, even though some of the boundaries will not be coterminous with those of the new parliamentary boundaries. Some of the electorates will show a disparity as well by that time. I must ask the noble Lord: why should the composition of European constituencies not have the same considerations of fairness and equity as we all say there should be for United Kingdom parliamentary constituencies?
When the 1978 European Assembly Elections Bill was before Parliament, there was widespread agreement that the first direct elections in Great Britain should be on single-member constituencies, with voting on the basis of first past the post. I must ask: has the Government's readiness to leave the European constituencies as they are, with any disparities there may be, anything to do with the fact that the Government may be envisaging changes in the European constituencies before the next European elections? If so, they must make a very clear statement on that.
On this side of the House, few of my noble friends wanted direct elections. We were content with the nominated delegations, which kept a close relationship between Parliament and those who were going to the European Assembly. But Parliament accepted direct elections with large constituencies and with voting on the basis of "first past the post". If the Government are envisaging any change in European elections, I think we must be told in good time so that the issue can be debated in this House.
In view of my previous work, I fully appreciate the work that has to be done by the parliamentary commissions: in fact I had the pleasure of meeting various commissions on various occasions. I understand their work and fully appreciate that the work of the commission for England was brought to a halt in consequence of legal proceedings taken by the Enfield London Borough Council arising from what they thought were wrongful procedures on the part of the Local Government Boundary Commission. Therefore, we ought to be able to see exactly how that was effected.
I understand that the English commission gave notice of its intention to start its review in 1976 and it stated that it would be able to report in 1979. I fully recognise, as I say, that the work of this commission was held up by these legal proceedings and I understand it was held up for some months; but that surely does not explain why we now have to wait until 1982
346
before getting the final reports of the Boundary Commission. That is a deferment of far more than just a few months because of the dislocation due to legal proceedings: it seems to be nearer a couple of years.
Does this mean that the English commission has already put on one side any consideration of any provisional review of European constituencies, even before the passing of this Act by Parliament? No one has suggested, I gather, that the 1984 date-line could not be reached, and the general election for the United Kingdom Parliament does not have to be until somewhere around May 1984—naturally we would like to see it as soon as we could have it, for obvious reasons, but it need not be—and the European elections about June 1984. The noble Lord has said quite definitely that if the procedure under the 1978 Bill has to be followed it could delay the final report to Parliament by some 12 months. That would still get it in time for a possible general election in 1984.
We regard the Bill as unsatisfactory on two grounds. First, it cannot possibly be said that what was generally agreed two years previously to be right and correct has now been found to be illogical and has to be put on one side. Secondly, it is highly desirable that the European constituencies should be considered as seriously by Parliament as we should want to consider the United Kingdom constituencies; but that does not seem to be the case. We should like to see the reviews conducted so that we can have revised constituencies for both the European constituencies and the United Kingdom Parliament. As I say, as the other place has agreed on the principle of the Bill we obviously shall not oppose it, but there are these important questions we should like the Government to answer.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Banks: My Lords, I should like to join the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, for his very clear explanation of the contents of this Bill. It is called the European Assembly Elections Bill, yet it is not intended to have an effect on the 1984 European parliamentary elections. But it would make it easier for the Conservatives to win the next election for the Westminster Parliament. The Bill detaches the review of European constituencies, as the noble Lord explained, so that the Boundary Commissions can conclude their Westminster reviews and present them separately.
The Government want the next Westminster elections to be fought on the new boundaries, which it is generally reckoned will give them around 15 to 20 seats on past patterns of voting; and they want to be able to hold a general election on a date which suits them, probably in the last 15 months of this Parliament. One can well understand that they would not be unhappy to see the boundary changes for Westminster completed early. If this Parliament goes its full term—and the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, has underlined this—the new Westminster boundaries will be in force under the existing legislation and the discrepancies, to which the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, referred, will have been removed.
The advantage which this Bill gives the Government is early dissolution on new boundaries. The ability

347
to seek a dissolution of Parliament at any time, gives very great tactical advantage to the Prime Minister, whose power is thus considerably increased. My party are of the opinion that it is unhealthy for the Prime Minister to have such power, and that is one of the reasons why we have been in favour of fixed-term Parliaments. It is bound to be extremely inconvenient to have European and Westminster constituencies out of phase—and, again, the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, raised that point—and it must cause problems for electoral registration officers, party organisations and candidates.
Under the change proposed in the Bill, it appears that the European review need not be completed in time for 1984, as the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, said. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, can give us an assurance on this point when he comes to reply. I am sure he agrees that it would be absurd to have Members of the European Parliament having to work in the late 1980s to boundaries that were last used nationally in 1979 and based on pre-1974 local government boundaries. This Bill, by keeping alive a procedure for new single-Member Euro-constituencies seems to assume that the present electoral system will continue, and on that point I put a different interpretation from that put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill.
We on these Benches object to a European Assembly Elections Bill at this time, which completely ignores the commitment entered into by all the member countries that the next elections to the European Assembly should be by a uniform system throughout the Community. The single-Member Euro-constituency was a temporary expedient. In 1977, the Conservative Party accepted that there would be a uniform system for the second time round. Further, Mr. Douglas Hurd, now Minister of State at the Foreign Office, appeared to assume that the uniform system would be proportional, because he argued against the regional list system of proportional representation—which was put forward by the Labour Government—for the first round, because he said that we would simply have to change again to another proportional system, which might well be different, the second time round.
So the first-past-the-post system was kept for the first round, and we all know the appallingly unrepresentative result to which that gave rise, as many of us said, again and again, that it would. The Conservative Party got 77 per cent. of the seats, but only 50 per cent. of the votes; the Labour Party got 22 per cent. of the seats and 33 per cent. of the votes, while the Liberal Party got no seats, but 13 per cent. of the votes. Mr. Brittan, the Minister of State at the Home Office, speaking for the Government in another place on 3rd December 1980 said:
"We are in favour of a uniform system".—[Official Report, Commons; col. 534.]
and I welcome that, as far as it goes. It is, of course, for the European Parliament to put proposals for a uniform system to the Council of Ministers. If one of the recommendations is that the uniform system shall be proportional, will the Government accept that?
348
Are they prepared to accept the principle of a proportional system for Europe?
I very much hope, having seen the distorted representation which the United Kingdom secured in the European Parliament in 1979, that the Government will not be content with a purely passive role in this matter, but will actively seek to promote a uniform system on a proportional basis. Would it not be right to make clear in this Bill that, in so far as the provisions in this Bill affect the review of constituencies in the European Parliament, these provisions shall be in force only up to the introduction of a uniform system, when new procedures will be required? We on these Benches do not like this Bill, because we see it as conferring a tactical advantage upon the present Government, because we think it would cause problems for all concerned with European elections and because we consider that it appears to assume the continuation of a discredited electoral system.
Viscount Barrington: My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, answers, I do not know whether it is worthwhile putting it on record, as the subject of proportional representation has been raised, that the number of Members on the Conservative side, the number of Members on the Labour side and the number on the Liberal side are exactly equal at the moment. That is a rare occasion.
7.37 p.m.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords who have spoken on this Bill, even though not giving it a welcome from both Benches which have been represented in this debate. None the less, it has been a interesting debate, and the noble Viscount, Lord Barrington, has added to our debate as well.
When I introduced the Second Reading, I ventured to say that this is a short and straight forward Bill. It seeks to relieve the Boundary Commissions of the duty which was laid upon them by the 1978 European Assembly Elections Act, of having to review the boundaries in both European constituencies and Westminster constituencies simultaneously. The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, asked me why it was that the Government had decided now that the Bill was necessary, and not at some previous date. One of the reasons why the Bill brings forward its provisions now is that the requirements of the 1978 Act place a burden upon the Boundary Commissions, which it is fair to say was not foreseen. If I may illustrate what I mean by that, the Parliamentary Boundary Commission for England gave statutory notice of its intention to review constituencies in England before the 1978 Act was ever introduced. Thus the time scale which that particular Boundary Commission had allowed to enable its review to be completed, within the 15-year maximum time limit, had been calculated before it was realised that the 1978 Act would place an additional duty upon the Boundary Commissions to review simultaneously the European constituency boundaries. The noble Lord also asked me when it had become clear to the Government that we ought to uncouple the two sets of reviews.
I think it follows on from what I have just said that this became increasingly clear, certainly since the

349
present Government came into office. Indeed, I said during my initial remarks that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary had communicated with the deputy chairman of the English commission to ask at one time whether what was being proposed in this Bill would be welcome to the Members of this commission and received a reply in the affirmative.
However, as time went on over the last 18 months what became increasingly clear was that a period of time has to elapse after the Commissions have completed their work. After they have completed their work, first the Secretary of State has to consider the commissions' reports; then the relevant Secretaries of State have to lay the necessary orders; then Parliament has to decide upon those orders. If those orders are approved by Parliament—nobody will understand this better than the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, with his very long experience of administration in politics—new constituency organisations will then have to be formed, with all the work which goes into that. The need to see that these procedures are carried out fairly—I say that because they are procedures which affect all political parties—is accentuated by the gross disparities which have become evident between constituencies. I shall not repeat what I said on this in my opening remarks.
Both noble Lords who have spoken from the respective Front Benches suggested that in order to rectify these discrepancies and in order to apply the rules for the redistribution of seats, which are set out in Schedule 2 to the 1949 Act, some advantage will accrue to the Conservative Party. Only the voters can answer that particular allegation. The noble Lord, Lord Banks, as I know from the speeches which I hear the noble Lord make in Parliament, is as firmly a supporter as anyone of the principles and practice of parliamentary democracy. I am sure the noble Lord would agree with me that anybody who believes in parliamentary democracy would not wish to see the next general election contested on the present boundaries.
But the Bill has a further and very different advantage to which I referred initially and to which, very briefly, I will refer again because it arises from a matter which the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, put to me. When the 1978 Act was going through Parliament, Schedule 2, which required the reviews to be conducted simultaneously for both the Westminster Parliament and the European constituencies, was not debated at all in the other place because it was guillotined. Indeed, in your Lordships' House amendments were not made because time was very pressing. It is arguable that time was pressing because of the policies and steps which had been followed by the Government of the time. In his speech the noble Lord said to me: Why, when the Bill came before another place, did not my right honourable friend, the present Home Secretary, then oppose Schedule 2? I think I have given the answer. There simply was no possibility of doing so because the matter did not arise in Committee in another place; it was guillotined.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, that may be acceptable, but it was not criticised or opposed by the noble Lord's right honourable friend during the Second Reading debate.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, that is a perfectly fair point, but it is also fair for me to say that I think I am right in saying that my right honourable friend at no stage said that he thought it was a good idea. The reason why neither my right honourable friend nor, indeed, anybody else at that time could see very much further than that was because it was only later, when events began to unfold, that we began to realise the effects which the 1978 Act was having upon the work of the boundary commissions.
No real thought at that time therefore was given to the problem with which this Bill is designed to deal. The probability is that the requirement for simultaneous reviews would make it necessary for the boundary commissions to make premature disclosure of final recommendations for parliamentary boundaries if they are to be able to have the time to bring forward recommendations for European constituencies, which have then to be submitted to the Secretaries of State simultaneously with the Westminster constituencies. But when the simultaneous recommendations came to be made, as they would have to be made as the law stands at the moment, if Parliament were to reject any of the recommendations for the parliamentary constituencies and those recommendations therefore had to be modified, that in turn—I know I am repeating a point which I have already made—would throw into confusion the recommendations for European constituencies.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, chided the Government for not taking the drawing of the European constituencies with the same seriousness as the drawing of the parliamentary constituencies. With respect, I think that is a little less than fair. The danger to which I have just referred and, indeed, the previous danger to which I have referred—which is hurrying the commission's work on and making them put in premature recommendations—will be averted by the Bill. That is why I think that the two processes of review should be separate. And they will be if the Bill becomes law.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, asked me about the period of time when the boundaries of the parliamentary constituencies will be redrawn but the boundaries of the European constituencies will not be redrawn. Paragraph 8(2) of Schedule 2 to the 1978 Act provides for precisely this. It provides that the existing boundaries can be used until new European Parliament boundaries are determined, even though the parliamentary constituencies have been changed. I am not suggesting for one moment that this is going to be a desirable situation, but I believe that the period of time when the European boundaries have not been changed in line with the Westminster boundaries is going to be comparatively short.
The noble Lord asked me, in essence, whether the European Assembly constituencies review is going to be completed in time for the 1984 elections. May I simply repeat the remark which was made by my honourable friend the Minister of State in another place on the Third Reading of the Bill that I have no advice to the contrary.
The noble Lord, Lord Banks, asked me for an assurance that the European Assembly constituency boundaries would not still be being redrawn in the late 1980s. I can answer that question simply by

351
asking the noble Lord to glance at the Bill, where we find the words:
"… that the work of reviewing the European boundaries shall be proceeded with as soon as may be after the Parliamentary Boundaries Order is approved by Parliament".
As I have just said to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, the period which the review of the European boundaries will occupy should not be overlong. I am advised that it will probably be in the region of, roughly, 15 to 20 months. I say that without any prejudice to the work which the commissions are doing, which is a matter for them. However, I understand that the bulk of the preparatory work for the European constituencies can be set in hand as soon as the commissions' reports on the parliamentary constituencies are ready.
Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Banks, asked me this: if the proportional representation system recommendation were to be made by the European Parliament, would it be accepted by Her Majesty's Government? The United Kingdom Government await any proposals which the European Parliament might put to the Council of Ministers on the matter and in considering such proposals we shall consult opinion in Parliament and in the country. If any change in our arrangements for electing representatives to the European Parliament seems appropriate, substantive primary legislation will of course be required.
This Bill is not designed to be a general measure of electoral reform. It is short and it is simple. By returning to the system which existed before the 1978 Act, this Bill will enable the Boundary Commissions to complete their work, which should be welcomed by all who believe in the fairness of parliamentary representation.
On Question, Bill read 2a and committed to a Committee of the whole House.
Viscount Long: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do now adjourn during pleasure until eight o'clock.
Moved accordingly and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended front 7.49 until 8 p.m.]

Wildlife and Countryside Bill [H.L.]
House again in Committee on Clause 26.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 405A:
Page 25, line 2, leave out ("(2)") and insert ("(2A)").
The noble Earl said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments 406 to 408 not moved.]
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 409:
Page 25, line 13, at end insert ("for each hectare or part hectare affected by the operation.").
The noble Baroness said: This is an effort to make the fines for this offence more sensible. As it stands, the statutory maximum is £1,000. We wish to ensure that if an offence has been committed there shall be a
352
fine of up to the maximum for each hectare or part hectare affected by the operation. If this amendment is not carried, it will mean that committing an offence will really be worth while. I should like to say also, as we had some difficulties about fines the other day, that if the maximum of £1,000 is imposed for each hectare it is not necessary to impose the maximum fine. The circumstances can be taken into consideration. With that explanation of this simple but, in my opinion, important amendment, I beg to move.
The Earl of Avon: I certainly take the point made by the noble Baroness on this issue. I think it would be difficult to tie the penalities for the offence to the area involved, as is suggested—
Baroness David: If I may interrupt for a moment, we have had it established that it could be for each egg.
The Earl of Avon: The noble Baroness is obviously basing the argument on the principle of each egg, as in an earlier case. Quite honestly, where there is power to proceed by way of indictment with a view to seeking the penalty of imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or an unlimited fine, I think that is serious enough.
Lord Melchett: But do we not all agree on both sides of the Committee that this is not an offence for which it would be suitable to send people to prison. The noble Earl is quite right, if the financial penalty is left at the level it is in the Bill, inevitably for an offence which involves more than one hectare, where the financial gain will be well over £1,000 the prosecuting authorities will have to proceed on indictment in an attempt to get a prison sentence, which is what none of us wants.
The Earl of Avon: I hope the noble Lord did hear me say "not exceeding two years or an unlimited fine". The position, as I think the noble Lord is well aware, is that I am trying to get clear what will actually happen with regard to imprisonment; and if we can get agreement that imprisonment is not the right answer, then we should take into account the fact that a fine could be increased.
Baroness David: I think that is quite a satisfactory answer, so we shall wait to see what amendments the Government table at Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.5 p.m.
Earl De La Warr Earl De La Warr moved Amendment No. 410:
Page 25, line 14, leave out from ("to") to the end of line 15 and insert ("a fine").
The noble Earl said: At last we get round to imprisonment. We have discussed it a number of times, but this is the first time we have actually had an amendment on it. The purpose is to remove altogether from this clause the penalty of imprisonment, so the penalty would then be a maximum of £1,000 on summary conviction and an unlimited fine following conviction on indictment.
I feel very strongly that a fine is the appropriate punishment on this clause, and I feel even more strongly

353
that imprisonment is inappropriate for this sort of offence. It is not an offence against any person; public order is not involved nor the sanctity of possessions. Indeed there is practically no offence that I can think of which carries a penalty of imprisonment which is anything like this at all. I very much doubt whether Parliament ought to be creating even more imprisonable offences, particularly when magistrates and judges are being exhorted by the Lord Chief Justice to be more sparing in imposing sentences of imprisonment.
Until a short time ago I had hoped that the Government would be able to accept this amendment immediately and as it stood. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Avon, who has kept me in touch and he said a few words about it earlier this evening. I am not quite sure what his problem is, but I know he has one and I believe he will find it difficult to give a precise answer tonight. Nevertheless, I commend this amendment to your Lordships and I look forward very much to hearing what my noble friend has to say. I beg to move.
Lord Middleton: It must go in the face of all that is being said at present about the sentencing of criminals to create another offence carrying imprisonment, having regard to the nature of the offence mentioned in the clause. I think both sides of the Committee are not saying that those who wilfully seek to destroy our heritage should not be hit hard. They should be, but I feel sure that a tine is more appropriate.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: As I said earlier, I entirely agree with this amendment. I have spent a good many hours saying exactly the same thing in this House and I shall not say it again.
The Earl of Avon: I had not realised that this amendment was following so quickly on the one moved by the noble Baroness, Lady David. My answer is basically the same. I am trying very hard to get rid of imprisonment. It is being considered at the moment by the various Government departments and as soon as I have a solution I shall come back to your Lordships.
Earl De La Warr: I am grateful to the noble Earl for what he has been able to tell us and I shall be happy to withdraw this amendment, but in all fairness to the noble Earl I cannot do so without warning him in—if it is not too impertinent—what I might describe as the sternest terms, that it is my intention to get the word "imprisonment" right out of Clause 26, and unless that happens I shall have no hesitation in dividing the House at Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.9 p.m.
Lord Melchett Lord Melchett moved Amendment No. 411:
Page 25, line 15, at end insert—
(" (c) on conviction to be ordered by the court to reinstate the land covered by the order and damaged by the operation by any means that the court may direct so as to return the land to the state that it was in before the operation was carried out, or that approximates as closely as possible to the state of the land before the operation was carried out.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment would give the court the power (to put it briefly) to reinstate the land which was covered by the order which had been put on it by the Secretary of State, so that the person who had damaged the land illegally would be required to restore the land to the state that it was in before the operation was carried out, or as near to that as possible. The intention of this amendment is to give the courts power to impose this penalty should it be appropriate.
It seems to me that, of all the various penalities we have discussed, fine, imprisonment and so on, this is likely to be the best deterrent to somebody breaking the law under Clause 26. To take the example of a forester, rather than a farmer; some people may think we have had it in for farmers today. Somebody plants conifers on an area of moor which is covered by an order and therefore breaks the law. The court could ask them to take up those conifers, and, probably, if the trees had not grown very much and a lot of fertiliser had not been applied, the moor would very quickly revert to the state it was in before the planting was carried out; and also, of course, depending on the extent to which drainage operations had been carried out before the planting took place.
It would be possible to conceive of a number of situations in which reinstatement would be a realistic possibility. That, it seems to me, would be by far the most useful thing the court could do, which would most nearly meet the intention of putting the order on the land in the first place; namely, to preserve it for future generations in the state that it is in at the moment. I hope, on that basis, this amendment will commend itself to the Committee, bearing in mind the magistrates, or the county court judge, or whoever would be in a position to decide whether or not this was a realistic penalty to impose. I beg to move.
The Earl of Avon: The idea is attractive. But, although the noble Lord was quite convincing, I think in conservation terms this may be a little unrealistic. I have sympathy with the amendment. I think it is designed, as the noble Lord said, to bring home to potential offenders the seriousness with which the Committee would view their transgressions. I am hopeful that we have provided sufficient deterrent in the penalties contained in the clause. I am still doubtful of the practicality that the land can be reinstated, although the noble Lord said it would be at the judge's discretion, to one which approximates to that state in which it was before the operation was carried out. Therefore, it is really on pragmatic grounds that I would ask the Committee to reject this amendment. Having so said, and without giving any undertaking, I should like to bear this in mind if we do change the penalties generally, as something which could be brought up with the legal people. I do not think I could give any better undertaking than that at this stage.
Lord Burton: May I just ask this. If it is to be the case that it should be mandatory, as it appears to be in the amendment, there was a case recently where a farmer who was very conservation-minded and consulted everyone, planning authorities, the NCC, planted up 300 acres in what appeard to be a very

355
desirable planting, and then after the work was done it was found that it was an SSSI. It was probably one of those many we have heard about; the 10 per cent. which have now been done away with. It was done entirely involuntarily. If this were to become mandatory, as the amendment appears to suggest, I think it would be very hard on this individual.
Baroness White: This surely could be a matter of phrasing, so that it was not mandatory, but open to the court. After all, if you are taking imprisonment out, which I am all in favour of—I think we are unanimous in that, and the Government must find a way of meeting it—you are left with monetary penalities only. That depends very much on the circumstances of the person concerned; it may be a genuine penality, or it may be something for which he does not care two hoots. But if he feels that it is possible that he may be obliged to waste all the work that he has done, surely this is making the penalty fit the crime. I would have supposed that psychologically, apart from monetarily, this could have quite a strong effect. I think most farmers would think twice before putting themselves in the situation where they risked, if it were contrary to the appropriate regulations, looking foolish, among other things. The farming community is a fairly closed community, and if a chap has done something and then has to go and grub it all up, he will not feel all that pleased when he goes to the Bull and Bear on the Saturday, because people will be pulling his leg about it. I am not being entirely frivolous. This question of the esteem of your peers is strong in most circles of society. I would have thought that was one reason among others why, at any rate, the idea contained in this amendment is a very sound one.
Lord Hunt: I should like to support this amendment if only because this is very much in line with what one might call progressive penal policy or thinking, to make appropriate reparations in the context of what has been done or misdone. I think it would be very right that this amendment should find its place in the Bill.
Lord Foot: Perhaps I may speak for one moment, to deal with this suggestion made by the noble Lord opposite, that you could have a case in which the offence had been committed involuntarily by somebody who did not properly understand the situation. There are, I suggest, two answers to that. One is that if one looks at the provisions of this clause, one sees very clearly that the owner or occupier of land will know perfectly well whether the Secretary of State has in fact designated his land as land which is of particular value for flora and fauna and the rest, and thereafter if he wants to undertake an operation, of course, he has to put in his application. Then his application is considered by the planning authority or by the Minister. So there is not the slightest chance that he could afforest a stretch of land without knowing what he was doing. Further than that, if you did have a case in which the defendant could show in subsequent proceedings that he had been genuinely mistaken, that would obviously be a circumstance which the court would consider in deciding whether to impose the additional penalty of having to restore the land. So I would
356
suggest the objections the noble Lord raises are not really of much virtue.
I would support what the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said, that we have in recent years very much extended the capacity of the courts to impose appropriate penalties; and in particular, of course, we have developed a very large body of law dealing with matters of recompense and compensation to victims and so on. In this case, the victim is the public; the victims are the animals or the flora in this particular habitat. It would surely be very appropriate to require that the person who commits the offence should restore the situation so far as that could be done. As the noble Baroness, Lady White, said, it would be entirely within the hands of the court to decide whether they thought it fit that, in all the circumstances, this was the appropriate penalty. It may be that the court could also be allowed, if they thought it was not manageable to restore the land, to order the defendant to pay some additional penalty by way of compensation to the state for the injury which he had done.
The Earl of Avon: As I said right at the beginning, the Government are quite attracted to this, and bearing in mind what noble Lords and the noble Baroness have said, of course, we will have a look at it and see how we can package it up, if at all, with the other parts.
Lord Melchett: I am very grateful to the noble Earl for that. I dare say it is not drafted correctly. I did not intend it to be mandatory. I quite take Lord Burton's point. I do think it is practical in more cases than one might initially think. Perhaps I could give two examples which the Government might care to consider. There was a case where a landowner, who was about to be served with a tree preservation order on a woodland, sent in the bulldozer to smash down the trees before the tree preservation order could arrive, and succeeded in doing so. The wood was reduced to a series of stumps a few feet high. It was not even properly felled or anything like that. There was an attempt to destroy it before it could be preserved. In that case the Secretary of State confirmed the tree preservation order because it was felt that the woodland that was left, the flora and many of the animals, insects and other things that were left, even though all the trees were reduced to stumps, were worth preserving and that the woodland would itself naturally regenerate. It may be that it would take 100 years to do so, but it was still worth saving. That is a case where some sort of reinstatement might be a suitable penalty.
Also, the RSPB has experience of creating or reinstating wetlands throughout the country with enormous success in a number of areas. Minsmere is the most famous example, but there are many others. I should have thought that there are cases where this might be suitable. The Government have agreed to look at it and for that I am very grateful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.21 p.m.
Lord Melchett Lord Melchett: moved Amendment No. 412:
Page 25, line 25, at end insert (" and only if no possible means of meeting the emergency without damaging the land to which subsection (2) applies was available.").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 412. This is a matter which we have to some extent touched on in Part I when we were dealing with what I think we described occasionally, by shorthand, as the "agricultural let-out clause" to the protection of birds and the part of the Bill dealing with the protection of animals. This is a similar paragraph, although it makes quite clear that what we are talking about is an emergency. We hope it might be possible to amend Part I so that this paragraph and the paragraphs in that part of the Bill have a similar wording; in other words, where it is necessary to take action in an emergency one could do so.
I wanted to be sure that action would only be taken to destroy a site—and we remind ourselves that we are talking of one of the top 40 or 50 in the country on which the Secretary of State has placed an order—in an emergency if there was no other way of dealing with that emergency. It may be that the wording of the paragraph already meets that point, in which case I shall be happy to withdraw the amendment; or it may be that the Government could find a slightly less clumsy way of meeting my point, in which case I would also be very pleased. Meanwhile, I beg to move.
The Earl of Avon: The effect of subsection (7) as drafted is to allow emergency operations to be carried out on land designated by the Secretary of State under Clause 26 otherwise than in compliance with the ordinary requirements of the clause. In emergency situations it would be unreasonable to expect compliance to be in accordance with the ordinary requirements relating to written consent. However, the person carrying out the operation would be required to supply particulars of the operation—including details of the emergency—as soon as practicable after the commencement of the operation. It might not be feasible to consider other possible means of meeting the emergency which would result in the land not being damaged—and this is what we are really looking for—and we would not wish to place obstacles in the path of people who are seeking to deal with a real emergency. I would hope that they would consider the effects of their actions on the features of scientific interest, but in these situations the objective must be to act quickly.
The Government were really thinking on the lines, perhaps, of a firebreak or something like that when there was a risk and where to cut down something might be enough to save the lot. As with our other emergency amendments, I think that probably this will not be used at all, but it is something that the Government feel that they should put into the Bill. I do not know whether the noble Lord would like to pursue it?
Lord Melchett: I should like to ask the noble Earl a question because I too had in mind something like a fire. Let us say that a heath, which is subject to one of these orders, catches fire and there are some buildings at one end. It might be possible to set fire to a large part of the heath to form a firebreak to protect the buildings, or it might be possible simply to cut a small track or to pump some water from somewhere. I was hoping that the Bill would make clear, when it becomes an Act, that it was necessary to try to take any measures that one could which were reasonable—and we are all
358
governed by a reasonable excuse at the beginning—to meet the emergency, which did not involve destroying the site. One is really thinking in the unlikely event of there being two equally realistic and sensible steps to take—one which involved destroying the site and one which did not—that people would take the one that did not involve destroying the site. It occurs to me that quite a small change in the wording somewhere might meet the point, but I am not a good enough lawyer to know where it should be.
The Earl of Avon: I take the noble Lord's point. As we have it at the moment the person carrying out the operation would be required to supply particulars of the operation, including details of the emergency, as soon as practicable after commencement.
That is a deterrent in itself, but if he panics anyway, of course, he panics anyway. The effect of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord would be to make the owner-occupier guilty of an offence if he could not establish that there was no other possible means of meeting the emergency without damaging the land, which I think probably goes a little too far the other way. We have taken the other emergency clauses back to have a look at them, and I am quite happy to have a look at this one, if that is what the noble Lord wishes.
Lord Melchett: I take it that someone has to notify the NCC about what they have done and about the emergency. What would the NCC do if it got notification that there was a terrible emergency that was going to engulf my walking stick, so I burnt a firebreak three miles wide through the middle of this heathland in an emergency? What would the NCC do then? That is a gross exaggeration, but I am not quite clear how far the existing wording covers that situation. Perhaps the noble Earl could look at it, although I do not think that it is a big point. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 413 not moved.]
8.26 p.m.
Lord Middleton Lord Middleton moved Amendment No. 414:
Page 25, line 25, at end insert—
(" ( ) An order under this section is a local land charge.").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 414. This is the first of four amendments that I have put down with the object of ensuring that restrictions on the use of land arising from the Bill are recorded and registered. In view of the restrictions to be imposed by a Clause 26 order, it is desirable that when land, on which an order under the clause has been made, changes ownership, the prospective purchaser should be made aware of the order. If it were registered as a local land charge then it would be discovered during the formalities leading up to the completion of the sale. I think that earlier the noble Earl, Lord Avon, accepted this amendment in principle, and I know that it is also accepted on the other side of the Committee. Nevertheless, I beg to move.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: First, I was a little surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, withdrew

359
Amendment No. 413 because in our discussions I thought that the Government said they were going to accept that amendment. Perhaps the noble Earl in the course of conversation as we move on could remind me whether I am right or wrong. I do not want to press it at this moment. It is extremely important because Amendment No. 376, which was accepted, applied to all SSSIs. When the noble Earl said that he would also agree with, I thought, Amendment No. 413, I assumed that that applied to all SSSIs. This is a very important point. If it does not, it ought to do so. As regards the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, I agree with the point he is making, but think also that this should apply to all SSSIs. I am in a state of total confusion as to whether either of these do or do not.
Lord Craigton: Perhaps I may say a word. The noble Earl gave a very qualified acceptance to the amendment. As I understand it, he accepted the principle of an order being made a land charge, but not a notice under the new subsection that we had. It was a very qualified undertaking. That was as far as I felt we could go, and that was why I did not move the amendment.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: I should only like to say that I am sorry the noble Lord did not, because I should have liked to go further.
The Earl of Avon: I think that the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, got carried away quite a bit there because we undertook to table some amendments if my noble friend withdrew his.
I return to land charges. We are guided here by the Land Charges Act 1975. I hope that my assurance to my noble friends that orders under Clause 26 of the Bill would automatically constitute local land charges under the Land Charges Act 1975 will be sufficient to persuade them to withdraw their amendment. It is not the practice to make express provision for local land charges where the 1975 Act already covers them. That is in the case of orders made under Clause 26. With land charges, if any restriction is imposed, there is an automatic land charge. If there is a case where successors are included, that would make a land charge. To that extent land charges will be automatic.
The other point I made when I spoke earlier was that if there was a normal agreement between the NCC and a farmer which did not cover successors, land charges would not be involved because a successor was not involved. That is, as it were, the position of land charges under the Land Charges Act 1975.
Lord Melchett: I should like to ask a question because we had a rather muddled debate on this before dinner—at least, I was muddled by it, which was probably my fault. Does that mean that if Clause 26 of the Bill, when it becomes an Act, does not include provision for owners of SSSIs to notify the NCC automatically, which is something that the Government appeared to turn down earlier, then all SSSIs cannot be a local land charge; but if it did, they would? It seems to me that there is a great deal of advantage in all SSSIs being a local land charge. None of us wants landowners or
360
farmers suddenly to find that a bit of land which they have bought, a bit of land on which they have become a farming tenant, or whatever it may be, is an SSSI. I do not see, without this land charge provision applying to all SSSIs, how we can get over that problem, which I think, although we disagree on other things, is a point that all of us have in common—that everyone ought to know if a bit of land is an SSSI.
People who succeed either to a farming tenancy or to the ownership of the land, or whatever it may be, also ought to know that it is an SSSI. Bearing in mind the Government's state of mind—confused as it is at the moment—I do not think that we shall achieve that, which is something about which there is unanimity.
The Earl of Avon: The Government's state of mind is not confused at all. I am perfectly happy about these land charges. The obvious safeguard is the fact that we are now tabling these three amendments which will notify the owners of the property if it is an SSSI.
Lord Melchett: But that does not meet my point.
The Earl of Avon: I am sorry, but the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, did not acknowledge that point in his argument so the situation is not as it was yesterday; it is as it is tomorrow. If the Bill, as drafted, goes through, there will be notification to the owners of SSSIs as to that for which they are responsible and as to what it is, which has not happened in the past, as a number of noble Lords mentioned.
Lord Melchett: I accept that, but, with respect to the noble Earl, that was not the point which I was making. Let us assume that the NCC sends out all these notices and that next week 45 SSSIs change hands; that not even the ownerships change but that the farming tenancies change; that new tenants take over; that somebody dies and his son takes it over. The NCC will not tell all those people; it will not re-issue the notices because it will not know what has happened.
The only way that we can get over the problem of a change of ownership, a change in the tenancy or whatever, is by having something like a local land charge which runs with the land. I think that that would be of great strength from all points of view concerning the problems that we have been discussing. Now that I have made myself clearer, perhaps the Government might undertake to have a look at that particular point, because I notice that there was a great deal of nodding going on behind the noble Earl as I was speaking.
Lord Middleton: My amendment deals specifically with orders under Clause 26, which is the slightly narrower point. I am satisfied with the assurance that my noble friend has given, that such restrictions are automatically land charges. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.35 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 26, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Melchett: In the absence of the noble Duke, the Duke of Atholl, I should like to suggest to your

361
Lordships that, even if we do not do it this evening, when we come back on Report—unless we see some change—it would be better to omit Clause 26 from the Bill. I say this having considered very carefully what the Government have agreed to do so far. But it seems to me that we are running the risk of ending up with a provision which nature conservationists will feel is a great deal worse, if anything, than the existing position.
Noble Lords know how bad nature conservationists think the existing position is. In the last 12 months we have lost about 10 per cent. of SSSIs through either damage or destruction, which is a disastrous situation and absolutely appalling. But, as drafted by the Government, and bearing in mind what they have agreed to accept so far during the passage of the Bill, Clause 26 does virtually nothing to right that appalling situation. In fact, in some ways the clause is an even worse clause now that we have finished with it in Committee than it was when we started, because the Government pressed an amendment which slightly, in our view—and maybe significantly—restricted the extent to which orders under this clause could be used, by changing the grounds on which the Secretary of State could designate a piece of land as having an order applying to it.
We know perfectly well that the destruction of SSSIs is accelerating. We know perfectly well that the Government, given their financial policies, will not give the NCC massive injections of funds in order to allow it compulsorily to purchase sites which are threatened or which are being damaged. Under the clause allegedly the only thing which we have to protect SSSIs is a very small number on which owners will be required to tell the NCC if they damage the site; then there is a three-month waiting period and then the owner can go ahead and damage or destroy it whatever the NCC, the Government or anybody else says, unless the NCC issues a compulsory purchase order.
The clause does no more than that. The NCC already has powers compulsorily to purchase SSSIs; in other words, the clause does nothing except give us a three-month delay on a very small number of sites, restricted in national importance, restricted in all sorts of ways which the Government have tightened up during our discussions on the clause in Committee. Those notification procedures will inevitably be applied to things that will be called super SSSIs, which everyone will assume—as many people do now about all SSSIs—are protected. That will be a sham and pretence because they will not be protected. The NCC will not be able compulsorily to purchase them, even if it wants to, because it will not have the funds, and it has shown no inclination towards using its existing powers up to now.
That is what makes me say that the clause is probably worse than useless. This is the clause which the Government have introduced to meet a number of international obligations in order to ensure that they protect wildlife habitats. I do not believe that it will; it will probably make the situation worse. I hope that, when we come to the Report stage, if the Government have not substantially improved this clause, your Lordships will delete it and make the Government take other steps to meet their international obligations, because this Bill as it stands definitely does not.
Lord Craigton: Speaking for the conservation movement as a whole, I believe that this clause, as we now leave it, is more disappointing—and we had high hopes—than I could have believed possible when we started debating today. The noble Lord should remember that we not only have the Report stage and even the Third Reading to come in your Lordships' House, but that there is another place which feels as strongly as we do. So I would ask the Government, "Please, between now and the Report stage realise that we cannot all be wrong". Every conservation society in this country, whatever its angle, agrees with what we have put forward today. I hope that my noble friend Lord Avon will think it worth while to meet some of the points that are so genuinely held when we come to the Report stage.
Baroness White: As a member of CoEnCo, of which the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, is chairman, I should like briefly to echo what he and my noble friend have said. We had supposed that, on this clause at any rate, the Government might have realised the strength of feeling in the conservation movement in this country. I am just lost for words. Thank you for nothing. That is all that one can say. It is deeply disappointing. We recognise that there are problems about some of these matters, but we have had no substantive encouragements of any kind. I can only say that we are deeply depressed and disappointed.
Lord Chelwood: I strongly support all three points of view that have been put forward. I had a self-denying ordinance during this debate. There was a lot I should have liked to say on this clause, but the reason I did not say it was because it was all said for me, and better than I could have said it. I am disappointed at the attitude of the Government here. I still feel that all self-financed operations in all SSSIs that are potentially damaging should be subject to advance notice to the Nature Conservancy Council just as those that attract capital grants have been since last summer. The Government set the principle last summer in a comparatively small way, but they at least admitted that there was merit in it.
Even though I confess that that would not bring to an end the serious loss of habitats, which nobody has sought to deny, it would at least mean there was a greater opportunity of voluntary agreements, and perhaps capital payments for restraints which owners were prepared to accept and for which the NCC could afford to pay, leaving only as an absolutely last fallback position compulsory purchase. I do not believe that many noble Lords have any idea how many times the Nature Conservancy in the old days, and the Nature Conservancy Council now, has actually made any compulsory purchases. There is quite a lot of misunderstanding about this. The general impression is that it might have been dozens of times, or even hundreds of times. It has been done only twice since they have had those powers. In both cases it was because there was a serious doubt about who had the title deeds, and what they said. This is a last fallback position. All the time the attempt has been, and will in the future be, to reach voluntary agreements, and that has been the rule with only few exceptions.

363
I confess to serious disappointment at the Government's attitude. For the last 20 or 30 years since 1949 we have been passing legislation for nature conservation knowing all the time in our heart of hearts that the destruction of natural habitats would continue. That is what we run a risk of doing again now if Clause 26 is not amended along the lines proposed by my noble friend Lord Craigton. I confess to great disappointment, and I beg the Government to read this exceptionally interesting debate with great care to see whether they can come back at Report stage with something which can really do the job.
Lord Foot: May I add just three sentences in support of everything that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has said? I do not want to add anything to the argument. I agree with him that this clause is a bad cosmetic operation and is likely to prove absolutely futile in conserving these valuable places. I hope that the noble Earl will be impressed by the fact that this expression of opinion comes from all sides of the House. This is not a party matter, but it is a matter of desperate concern and disappointment to practically every conservationist body in the country that the Government have not been able to produce anything more effective than this.
We shall, I hope tomorrow, not tonight, be coming on to Clause 33. I am sorry to note that the noble Duke, the Duke of Atholl, although he is wanting to strike out a lot of clauses, has not included Clause 33, because that is as hopeless as the one we are discussing now. We shall have an opportunity of going into that matter tomorrow. I hope the noble Earl will be impressed by the fact that there is this wide bank of opinion which almost without qualification believes that this affords us no protection for these valuable places.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: The noble Duke, the Duke of Atholl, has had to go to America. He cannot be here.
Lord Hunt: The noble Lord, Lord Foot, said that there was an expression of view from all sides of this Committee in terms that the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, has eloquently expressed. I should be failing in my duty if I did not get up to express my view from these Cross-Benches; a view which is totally in favour of everything that has been said in criticism of this clause in the Bill and the Government's attitude generally towards the SSSIs. It is a crucial matter. When Lord Craigton said that this was a view shared by all the conservationist bodies, I can speak with knowledge of all those conservationist bodies in membership with the Council for National Parks.
Lord Monk Bretton: Before too many noble Lords condemn this clause altogether, I think there is something to be said for it. So far as the ordinary SSSIs are concerned—that is, those that are not subject to Clause 26—we now have the position that the owner is going to know what the NCC wishes should be preserved and what the NCC think will damage the site. That is a great improvement. If the owner of such a site proposes to do anything that would damage it, he really has two alternatives, as I see it. The
364
first is his sensible alternative, which is to go to the NCC and ask for a management agreement. The second and unwise alternative is just to get on with doing the damage without consulting the NCC, by which means he will forfeit any right to a management agreement anyway. I should have thought that that would be a powerful inducement to these people to do the right thing. I hope this is a correct interpretation of the Bill at this stage. I believe it is. That was a feeling I felt ought to be put forward.
Lord Melchett: Can the noble Lord explain to us why, once somebody has, say, ploughed up a piece of chalk grass downland and turned it over to wheat, he would want to have a management agreement with the NCC? This would seem to be the implication of his remarks.
Lord Monk Bretton: The noble Lord must realise that the owner and the occupier would perhaps forfeit a drainage grant. There must be advantages in seeking a management agreement, provided reasonable terms are offered and provided the NCC—which one hopes does have a little money—would come forward with it.
Lord Melchett: But that is exactly the position at the moment and we lost 10 per cent. of the SSSIs in this country last year, and in some counties over 30 per cent were damaged or destroyed. People already have to give notice if they are going to damage or destroy an SSSI and want to have a capital grant to do so. The Bill makes things worse, not better.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: The noble Lord is misinterpreting it. First, you are not likely to want to grow wheat in an SSSI. You are much more likely to be doing something marginal, and the management agreement would help you. The other point is over damage to these sites. The majority of sites have not been damaged, and that is the point that the noble Lord misses.
8.48 p.m.
The Earl of Avon: I have written down such remarks as "Thank you for nothing", and "Worse than useless". It really is ridiculous. Here we have a piece of legislation aimed at conserving, and aimed at conserving sites of special interest. People are going too far in the wrong direction over this. We have had a great deal of talk from the conservationists today. May I remind everybody that this Bill was not drafted by a pen in 20 minutes. There was a lot of prior consultation. The aim of this Bill is to conserve and to get a balance of conservation among all the people who use the country.
It is self-evident that ultimately conservation of wildlife is impossible unless measures are taken to protect the habitats which support it, and this is what Clause 26 does. Under present legislation the only means available to the Government to ensure that the habitat is protected is by acquisition of the land, usually through the NCC. Even here we have no power to prevent the destruction of a wildlife habitat before the purchase is complete. In view of our history of wildlife legislation, this is a somewhat surprising situation.

365
To remedy this, the Government have sought modest powers to ensure the protection of certain very important habitats. This is vital not only to keep our heritage but to honour our international obligations. Some noble Lords have shown a wish for the Government to go further, and I have indicated that we shall be tabling some amendments in respect of certain suggestions that have been made. Nevertheless, I must reiterate that the Government have no desire to move extensively into the sphere of land ownership or unnecessarily to extend bureaucracy or to place unreasonable burdens on landowners. All must agree that the enabling powers are vital, and accordingly I hope the Committee will agree to Clause 26 standing part of the Bill.
Lord Winstanley: I must take issue with the noble Earl when he tells the Committee that there has been a lot of consultation. What has happened is that the department sought advice from many bodies—the Countryside Commission, the Nature Conservancy Council and various voluntary bodies—received advice and then took no notice of it, which is precisely why there are so many amendments on the Marshalled List. If the noble Earl calls that consultation, I cannot go far with him in that direction.
Lord Melchett: I echo what the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, said. In particular the Minister omitted to tell us that the Nature Conservancy Council's scienctific advisers are not happy with the Government's proposals in Clause 26 and do not believe they go far enough. Nor can I accept from the noble Earl that the clause provides measures which will protect habitats. It does not. The only way to protect a bit of land under this clause if the landowner or farmer is determined to destroy it is through compulsory purchase, and the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, has already told us how likely the NCC are, on past experience, to be able or to want to use that power. That means that the clause does not provide any protection for habitats, and that is why many of us think it is a sham. However, we hope the Government and noble Lords in all parts of the Committee who are concerned about this will draft amendments between now and Report which will substantially improve the clause. If we cannot do that, then at that stage the honest thing will be to leave it out.
Clause 26, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 27 [Compensation where order is made under Section 26]:
[Amendment No. 415 not moved.]
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 415A:
Page 25, line 29, leave out ("(2)") and insert ("(2A)").
The noble Earl said: This is consequential on an earlier amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments. Nos. 416 to 420 not moved.]
8.54 p.m.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood Baroness Elliot of Harwood moved Amendment No. 421:
Page 25, line 40, leave out ("or").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment is linked
366
with No. 425, but unfortunately No. 425 has been left out by the printer; as the Committee can see, there are Amendments Nos. 424 and 426, and in the middle should be an amendment numbered 425 in the names of my noble friend Lord Massereene and Ferrard and myself. In moving No. 421, I shall therefore speak to No. 425, No. 421 being purely a drafting amendment.
This is concerned with the fact, as we know, that land which has been earmarked for some purpose or in any way altered so that it can no longer be saleable or saleable at its real value is a great handicap to those who wish to sell. It is obvious that there is no absolute right to compensation in the event of a reduction in the value of land, but I feel there should be some compensation if the legislation reduces the value of land very much.
It would be unfair if a person had just bought some land and found it was suddenly designated as an SSSI and he was therefore unable to use it as he intended or as he had found it, and obviously he could not sell it either because it would be worth much less than its market value, or indeed it might have no saleable value at all if it were so designated. We believe it would be only fair under those circustances that the value of the land should be recognised as having gone down and that there should be some possibility of compensation if and when the land had to be put on the market.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrerd: I support what my noble friend said on this issue. It is true that there can not be no absolute right to compensation, as my noble friend pointed out, but there should be certain circumstances where some compensation is payable, otherwise it would be most unfair. A man might find soon after buying some land that it has been designated an SSSI, and he might then find he cannot sell it. Indeed, he might have bought it with the object of selling it. Even if he could sell it only at a reduced price, it would be unfair if there were no possibility of compensation. I have sympathy with many of the remarks made by noble Lords in debating Clause 26 stand part. I suggest that if SSSIs are to be designated and if these provisions are to be operated peaceably, adequate compenation must be available for farmers who, say, cannot cultivate their land as they wish and for owners who find they cannot sell. We must remember that today more than in any other age land is changing hands much faster than in the past. There should be compensation.
Lord Craigton: I support the amendment, unless its purpose is already covered by an amendment standing in my name.
The Earl of Avon: I find it difficult to believe that any order under Clause 26 would make land unsaleable, as is implied by the terms of the amendment. Neither are the Government convinced that an order is likely to result in any appreciable reduction in the value of an interest in land when one weighs the advantages of designated land. In this respect, as I have said previously, we consider that the right to compensation for loss or damage arising from enforced delay in being able to carry out a specified operation after the service of an operations notice constitutes a valuable right, and that is what my noble friend Lord Craigton rightly mentioned.

367
Perhaps I can put it this way: The farmer will, in appropriate cases, be able to get the value of a crop without the work and risks involved in preparing the ground, sowing the crop and waiting hopefully for it to mature. This seems to me to be a substantial advantage, particularly if one adds to it the prospect of relief from capital transfer tax which the Treasury have indicated will be available.
There are in addition special problems in connection with the amendment. First, the basis of compensation is not actually stated, as it is in the case of existing paragraphs (a) and (b), and presumably paragraph (c) should result in compensation amounting to the difference in value, while in the case of paragraph (d) it would be the whole value of the land. However I think the real point is that it is impossible to envisage paying for the whole value of the land, except in return for the transfer of all interests in the land, and that is not provided for. I hope that with that explanation of what is already provided for, the noble Baroness may feel able to withdraw the amendment.
The Earl of Onslow: Has the noble Earl considered the following point? If there are these lovely tax reliefs on SSISs, they will probably be worth rather more, because there will be a market in SSSIs for capital transfer relief on deathbed schemes. Has the noble Earl taken that point on board?
The Earl of Avon: Personally, I have not.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: I listened with great interest to what the noble Earl, Lord Avon, had to say, but I am not very happy about it. In the farming world if the land has been designated and cannot be used for what it could normally be used for, it must lose its value; I cannot see how it can do anything else. I think it unfair that there should be no possibility of any compensation. In view of the noble Earl's explanation, I shall not press the amendment, but I do not like the answer very much. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 422 and 423 not moved.]
9.3 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 424:
Page 25, leave out lines 43 to 45.
The noble Earl said: It seems to me odd that the Government have included the words which this amendment seeks to delete, which preclude an affected person from seeking compensation for the loss of value of his land. I should be grateful if the Government would explain in a little more detail why they have specifically made this exclusion. I beg to move.
The Earl of Avon: I think that we might already have covered this point to a certain degree. The amendment seeks to provide for the payment of compensation in respect of a reduction in the value of an interest in land resulting from the making of an order under this clause. If the effect of making an order is in itself such as to cause a reduction in the value of land, we consider that any such reduction
368
will be more than offset by the possibility of obtaining compensation following the service of an operation notice, and by the prospect of relief from capital transfer tax.
The compensation which will be obtainable for loss or damage arising from enforced delay in being able to carry out a specified operation will, I submit, constitute a valuable right which, as I said in regard to the earlier amendment, will enable a farmer to reap the value of his crop without the work and risk involved in preparing the ground—sowing the crop. I hope that I have understood the noble Earl correctly and that my explanation will help.
Lord Swinfen: I believe that there is a parallel provision in the 1947 Town and Country Planning Act under which anyone who thought that there was possible development on his land could claim compensation in connection with having to apply for planning consent where there was a possibility of refusal. There is always the possibility that land that becomes a SSSI is not farmland. For one reason or another, an area of derelict industrial land might become inhabited by some interesting species. If that land were declared a SSSI, and so could not be developed industrially, there could be a very considerable loss to the owner.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: Why in this debate can we not hear a little more about the doctrine of the public good? We are now having an assortment of speeches from noble Lords opposite—all out of Burke's landed gentry. I consider that this pursuit of compensation, in all kinds of circumstances, for all kinds of reasons, is becoming a little obtrusive. After all, many sacrifices have to be made by people for the common good, and any proposal that is reasonable should be shouldered by citizens of different ranks, in different places, in order to contribute something to the national good. I am not a nationaliser by disposition, and I am not sure that I am a nationaliser by politics, either, but I think it was a mistake not to have nationalised the lot after the last war. I also feel that it was a serious mistake to repeal those sections of the Town and Country Planning Act 1947 that dealt with development value—and so far as I recall that was done by a Conservative Government.
There is one thing in life which one should not exploit too freely; that is the ownership of land. After all, where did the land come from? How did many noble Lords opposite come to possess the land that they possess? I do not think that the question of source of ownership would bear very close examination in very many cases. I have heard in this connection concerning the offspring of Nell Gwyn, but I do not want to pursue that point because I am not informed as to the facts.
However, seriously speaking, it would be nice to hear a little more about what noble Lords are prepared to contribute to the safeguarding of our inheritance and to the perservation of our wildlife and the beauty of Britain. Heaven alone knows! it is being destroyed at an alarming rate at the present time.
The Earl of Avon: I should like to welcome back the noble Lord who has not been here all day, nor was he

369
present at the previous sitting of the Committee, and we have been missing his charming voice. May I say to him very briefly that whereas many noble Lords seated behind me are conservationists—and we have heard points from all around the Chamber—I believe that some noble Lords opposite also own some land.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: I should like to add a few words, since this amendment is exactly the same as the one to which I referred a few moments ago. I should like to assure the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, that those of us who do have land are desperately anxious to conserve it, to share it with as many people as possible and to do everything we can to improve it agriculturally and in other ways; and that some of us think that some of the things done in the name of conservation, or what-have-you, do not always improve the land. On the other hand, I would say that I am, on the whole, prepared to defend the farming population and the farming industry as being anxious to preserve the land and to do the very best with it—much more, for instance, than the people who, outside towns, use it for building houses, planning purposes and all that sort of thing, which does away with it.
So I would assure the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, that so far as I am concerned I feel very keenly and very strongly about the preservation of land and the fact that it should be used for the best possible purposes. It may be that some SSSI uses are the best possible purposes, but we have heard a good deal from the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, which impressed me very much, to the effect that sometimes they are not always in the best interests of land. Therefore, I think it is only fair that some of us should say quite honestly what we feel about these things; and I am being perfectly honest with your Lordships because I feel very strongly that I want the land to be put to its best possible use and shared with as many people as possible.
Baroness White: I am sure the noble Baroness would agree with me that if she were living in one of those charming border towns near her home—there must be conservation areas there; I think they have them in Scotland, too, do they not?—and if one was in a conservation area, it would be very similar to having an SSSI on one's land. In other words, there is something there which is of public value, as my noble friend said; and, of course, if you are so fortunate as to be in a conservation area in an urban setting, you are there because there is something distinctive about that area. But you are under various constraints as to what you may do with your property. Surely it is very similar if you have an SSSI on your land; you are under certain constraints. But you are under certain constraints for a reason—because that particular area of land is important for nature conservation. You get some tax advantage, which I do not myself understand, but I am sure it is significant, and surely the person in that situation can turn it into an asset. You can describe all the beauties of the estate and then say, "And we have even got an SSSI!". This is the attitude we should adopt.
Viscount Thurso: I think it is a misconception to think that we can turn it into an asset, because my experience of SSSIs is that once they have been
370
declared nobody wants anybody to set foot on them in case they get destroyed.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: I think the noble Viscount's experience of SSSIs is worse than that of other people.
The Earl of Caithness: I will read with interest the comments made by everybody who has taken part in this debate, on this amendment and on the previous one, and perhaps we can come back to it at a later stage. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 425 not moved.]
9.11 p.m.
Lord Melchett Lord Melchett moved Amendment No. 426:
Page 25, line 45, at end insert (", or in respect of any potential loss of revenue from any activity not carried out on such land in the previous twenty years and that is prevented by the making of the order.").
The noble Lord said: Every time I look at this amendment I find difficulty in understanding it, so I hope I shall be able to get it straight in attempting to explain it to your Lordships' Committee. The aim of it, at least, is that somebody should not benefit from a potential loss of revenue which would arise from an activity on the land in question but which was an activity that they had not actually carried out on that land during the previous 20 years. What I have in mind is that if land had been grassland and had been used for grazing sheep, say, on it for the last 20 years, somebody should not be able to say, "If I planted wheat on it, the revenue from it would be so many hundred pounds an acre rather than the £100 I am getting from sheep, and therefore I ought to be compensated at the rate of the loss of revenue if it was arable rather than if it was grassland". I do not know whether that is already covered in the codes of compensation which would apply under the Bill. It may be that it is, in which case I can withdraw my amendment. I beg to move.
The Earl of Avon: I am informed that the purpose of this amendment is to add the further restriction that compensation shall not be payable in respect of any loss in potential revenue arising from an activity which has not been carried out on the land in the previous 20 years. The effect of the amendment would be, I believe, to rule out of consideration most circumstances in which compensation for the loss of potential revenue would be payable; and we must accept that when in the national interest a person is prevented from carrying out an operation which, but for the making of the order, he would have been able to execute without let or hindrance, and with the expectation of increasing his revenue, he should be able to have the opportunity to obtain compensation, which we think this amendment also rules out.
Lord Melchett: I am rather glad I have ruled it out, and I am sure my noble friend Lord Houghton will be equally delighted. What is to stop somebody coming along and saying, "I intended to convert this to arable, and therefore you have to pay me for the loss of revenue

371
which would be involved", even if they had no intention of doing so? It is that false intention which my amendment would at least deal with, and I wonder how the Government intend to deal with that problem. I wonder whether the noble Earl can help us on that.
The Earl of Avon: I think the noble Lord is producing an area of deviousness which the Government have not been devious enough yet to have looked at. I will certainly have a look at it.
Lord Melchett: I am speaking as a practising farmer. I was hoping that the noble Earl would tell the practising farmers, devious or not, what to do about it. I think I heard him say that he would look at it. On that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 427:
Page 26, line 8, at end insert ("or the Lands Tribunal for Scotland").
The noble Earl said: I should like to speak to this amendment together with Amendments Nos. 437, 438 and 439. These amendments are necessary to make good deficiencies in Clause 27 and Schedule 10, as drafted, and take account of the parallel but distinct arrangements in Scotland. Amendment No. 427 provides that disputes about compensation in Scotland shall be resolved by the Lands Tribunal for Scotland. The amendments to Schedule 10 similarly accommodate a description of planning authorities in Scotland as well as England and Wales and identify the apposite section of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973, which has been omitted from the paragraph as drafted.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 427A not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 27, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
9.15 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, was swift in withdrawing his Amendment No. 426 and I wanted to raise a small point on that part of the clause. I wonder whether the noble Earl when re-considering Amendment No. 426 (which is what I understood him to say) would consider that the right time is that which is included in that amendment, plus the possibility that it should be perfectly all right for the landowner to get compensation (even if he had not used the land in that way for 20 years) if he could produce any evidence at all from the time before the notice was served that he intended to use this land in this way. That is an extra matter that it might be useful for the Government to consider.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: On a not very different point, I am a little puzzled about compensation. I do not think my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby will object to what I am going to say. I do not think you are going to get satisfactory agreements with working farmers if you are going to ask them not to do something by which they can legitimately make money by good farming unless some compensation is paid. I do not want to raise the question of how old
372
a ley has to be before you can get compensation for ploughing it. It is a very difficult point. But it seems to me that the figure of compensation may be extremely high. If somebody buys a farm which contains an SSSI with some old pasture and he is a corn grower and wishes to plough this up and take a crop from it and has paid a price for the land because he could do so, it seems that with wheat at the sort of price it is now, you may run yourself into large sums of compensations.
Who pays this? It is not good saying that the conservation body, the NCC, will pay. They have no money, we know. If you are going to deal with, as you say, 40 or 50—and this will be, we hope 40 or 50 a year; and we shall have to push the Government up to that because anything less is doing no good—that can run into a good deal of money. There is no reason to suppose, in anything in this Bill, that the conservation council, the NCC, will be given this sort of money and the whole thing could fall down on this; and I am unhappy about it.
Lord Burton: Could I draw attention to the Explanatory Memorandum under the heading "Financial effects of the Bill"? It says:
"The habitat protection measures may also increase the need for the Council to make greater use of its existing powers to make management agreements or acquire land … "—
and give extra money for this fact. This seems to have been omitted by a number of speakers this evening.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: That is what must happen. And I want to be jolly sure it will. With the Government's present attitude, I doubt it very much.
The Earl of Avon: I do not think that compensation comes into that particular paragraph. I will take what the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, has said into account with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, and the noble Baroness, Lady David, and their amendment. The purpose of this clause is to provide for compensation in those circumstances where a landowner has suffered financial loss because of a restriction imposed upon him as a consequence of the imposition of an order under Section 26. It is not to provide compensation by virtue of the need to notify certain operations, except in those cases where he had already incurred expense before the need to notify arose and that expense had become abortive. Neither is it intended to provide for a hypothetical loss or gain in the value of land as a result of designation alone: I mean without subsequent restriction. Such compensation would be both contrary to Government policy and precedent and almost impossible to establish. In this we have a duty to the taxpayer as well as to the owner.
The Government believe, however—and I think that I have the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, with me here—that it is only proper that where a right to carry out an operation which has a financial value is in fact removed without alternative provision for recompense, they have a duty to provide for the payment of compensation. It is the Government which makes the payment. It is for this reason that this clause is necessary.
The Earl of Onslow: May I ask how much it is going to cost?
The Earl of Avon: That would be entirely crystal gazing.
Lord Denham: I wonder whether at this point I could say something very quickly; I do not want to hold up the Committee. We are now on the fifth or sixth day—I am rather losing count. Experience on this Bill has shown that sometimes we have lovely clear patches where we go very, very fast; and sometimes we seem to get bogged down in arguments which are almost philosophical and a little remote from the Bill. We have about an hour and a half left tonight, and I beg Members of the Committee to try to have a fast passage for that hour and a half rather than a slightly wavy passage that goes slowly.
Clause 27, as amended, agreed to.
[Amendment No. 428 not moved.]
9.22 p.m.
Lord Winstanley Lord Winstanley moved Amendment No. 428A:
After Clause 27, insert the following new clause:
("Protection of hedges and trees alongside highway
.—(1) The local planning authority may make byelaws for the prevention of damage to the land, or any features on or in the land, within any area designated under section 23 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 as an area of special scientific interest.
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) above, byelaws under this section relating to any area may prohibit, restrict or regulate—

(a) the riding of any bicycle, tricycle or similar machine,

(b) the driving, riding, exercising or breaking in of horses, and

(c) the use of metal detectors;

in the area, or any part thereof, except in the exercise of any lawful right.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is a new clause. Members of the Committee will have seen the explanatory words:
"Protection of hedges and trees alongside highway".
This new clause has nothing whatever to do with any of those at all. That is clearly a misprint. Members of the Committee will be familiar with the terms of this new clause and will know that it appears here as a result of the highly commendable efforts and initiative of the borough of Barrow-in-Furness. I say, "highly commendable", because it is not all that common for a local authority with serious urban problems to involve itself and to show such enthusiasm about conservation matters. But there are special circumstances in the neighbourhood of Barrow-in-Furness which many Members know about.
Local planning studies of three nature conservation review sites in the borough area highlighted continuing and difficult problems of controlling things like horse-riding, motor vehicle and motorcycle driving, boating, temporary camping, lighting of fires, damage to plants, animals and fixtures on the land, unauthorised access, all without the owner's consent. It was the belief of the borough of Barrow-in-Furness, and others who took an interest in these matters, that the existing legislation is inadequate to control those activities which come broadly under the term of non-development activities. Those are activities not needing planning permission, but the Government's Clause 26 would not cover them. Indeed, the term embraces the actions which are listed in the new clause. These
374
are the kind of matters which have been causing, serious difficulties in those areas.
Initially, the borough of Barrow-in-Furness had consultations with others and this matter was put into a Private Bill, the Cumbria Bill, which is before Parliament at the moment. But, in the course of consultations about Clause 41 of the Cumbria Bill with other authorities, it was rapidly discovered that this was not purely a local problem concerning Barrow-in-Furness and Walney Island, with its particularly vulnerable sites, but it was in fact a fairly common problem. I have a list of something like 16 different areas which have communicated with the people concerned, such as the Cumbria Naturalists' Trusts. As well as Barrow-in-Furness and as well as those responsible for the Cumbria Bill, many people from many areas have said they believe that some kind of measure of this sort would be very helpful. It is believed that these kinds of non-development activities could pose as much threat to nature conservation as would larger developments or even agricultural improvement schemes.
There are only powers of persuasion available at the moment to the Nature Conservancy Council and to local authorities to ensure that sites of special scientific interest are not harmed by these non-development activities.
The new clause really does no more than afford similar by-law protection to sites of special scientific interest as already exist for statutory nature reserves. I think this could be a very helpful measure. Many noble Lords have had correspondence from people in many areas who feel it would be advantageous if that section in the Cumbria Bill could be included in this Bill, and I understand that the Department of the Environment have advised the sponsors of the original matter that it would be more appropriate in this Bill than elsewhere.
Lord Sandys: I think it may be appropriate at this stage if, in replying to the Amendment, I referred to a number of other matters since it may help to allay the fears of Barrow-in-Furness and 16 other areas mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley. The vast majority of SSSIs are either on enclosed farmland or in areas not readily accessible to the public. I understand there are particular problems on some SSSIs, and Cumbria County Council are concerned about four sites in particular. But legislation already exists to control damaging activities, and it is this to which I should like to draw your Lordships' attention. Local authorities may make access orders under Section 65 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, and the consequent power to make by-laws is contained in Section 90 of that Act. Therefore, the Government see no need to impose any additional legislative power over the generality of SSSIs or to impose any unnecessary costraint on their owners or occupiers, where powers already exist which enable local authorities to control access. I commend these powers to their consideration. I hold in my hand a photostat of the two parts of that particular Act to which I have referred and I shall be happy to show it to the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, should he wish to examine it.
Lord Winstanley: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his reply, to which I listened most carefully. I

375
am very familiar with the Act to which he has referred. As I understand it, he has said that the authorities concerned could in fact make access orders under Section 65 under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act and thereby would have a consequent power to make by-laws as provided for in Section 90.
I wonder whether that really is a satisfactory explanation. I shall certainly think about it and consult with the various authorities, but it seems to me that the whole purpose of making an access order is to increase access to certain areas. In connection with some of the sites we are considering, and in particular that at the South end of Walney Island where there is a bird sanctuary, it seems to me that to increase access is the very last thing that local authorities might wish to do.
Of course, it might be perfectly possible to make an access order, in some kind of bogus way, to an area where there already is ample access. Indeed, the problem about some of these areas, such as the Knott in the Arnside and Silverdale area, which is an area of natural beauty, is that there is already too much access. Yet the noble Lord says that the remedy for those people is to seek an access order, whereby they will then be able to make consequential by-laws. It may well be that that is correct, but I shall need to think about it very carefully. Perhaps the noble Lord will forgive me, if I find his answer not as satisfactory as he hopes it is, if I come back to it on another aoccasion.
Lord Inglewood: May I say one word in support of the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley? Barrow-in-Furness is in the county of Cumbria where I live, and I think that the enterprise which they have shown by suggesting that this new clause should be included if not in the Cumbria Bill, at least in this Bill, is to be commended. As the noble Lord has just said, it is very important that we should bear in mind that in parts of this area the question of public access is not important, because there is a tradition that people have access to virtually the whole countryside. The difficulty is that there are so many people, at certain times of the year, in some areas of the Lake District and the surroundings, that that area is threatened with damage. It is important to consider here that the authorities concerned should have a chance of making sensible by-laws where such conditions exist. It may or may not be entirely true, in practice, as the noble Lord on the Front Bench has explained to us. I rise only to ask him to look at this again.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Chairman of Committees: I have to point out that, if Amendment No. 428B is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 429. 430 or 431.
9.32 p.m.
Lord Winstanley Lord Winstanley moved Amendment No. 428B:
Page 26, line 19, leave out subsections (1) and (2) and insert—
("(1) Where land in the countryside which consists substantially of limestone composed on or lying near the surface of the ground has been notified to the local planning authority by

(a) the Nature Conservancy Council as being of special interest by reason of its flora, fauna or geological or physiographical features; or

(b) the Countryside Commission as being of special interest by means of its contribution to the landscape character of the area; and

376

(c) it appears to the Secretary of State, the Countryside Commission or the county planning authority that the character or appearance of the land would be likely to be adversely affected by the removal of the limestone or by its disturbance in any way whatever,

the Secretary of State or the Commission or that authority may make an order designating the land and prohibiting the removal or disturbance of limestone on or in it; and the provisions of Schedule 10 shall have effect as to the making, confirmation and coming into operation of orders under this section.
(2) The Commission or the county planning authority may amend or revoke an order under this section made by the Commission or authority respectively and the Secretary of State may amend or revoke any such order made by him or the Commission or that authority, but in the case of an order made by the Commission or that authority, only after consultation with the Commission or authority respectively.").
The noble Lord said: With regard to the further amendments to which the Lord Chairman has referred, it seems to me that these are very much related matters and, if I may say so—I do not know whether this is for the convenience of the Committee—we have now opened up the whole question of limestone pavement. All these amendments relate to it. My own happens to come first, but I do not disagree with anything in any of the others, and it seems to me that they are not incompatible. Perhaps the difference is that mine spells out a mechanism a little more fully, and goes a little further in certain ways. But in moving Amendment No. 428B, I would say that I entirely agree, if it is not out of order for me to say so, with what is stated in Amendments Nos. 429, 430 and 431. Indeed, to some extent, they are identical. But I hope that all the various matters which are raised by these amendments can be discussed at one go, as it were, here and now.
We are now discussing something which is very important indeed, not just from the point of view of flora and fauna, but also from the point of view of landscape and scenery of outstanding value. We are talking about limestone pavements. Various people, who have sent me copious advice on this subject, have all told me the same thing. They have said that most limestone pavements occur in Cumbria, with others in North Lancashire, North-West Yorkshire and North Wales. I must dispute that. It is my experience that nowadays most limestone pavements can be found in rockeries in Kendal, in Colwyn Bay and places of that kind.
This is the problem with which we are faced. Very few areas of limestone pavement are now undamaged, because of the removal of surface stone for rockeries. The question is whether such removal constitutes development for the purposes of the planning acts. "Development is defined in Section 22 of the 1971 Act as:
"the carrying out of building, engineering, mining or other operations in, on, over or under land".
Removal by mechanical means clearly constitutes engineering or mining operations. But the question is whether simple removal by hand or crowbar constitutes "other operations". Local planning authorities seem reluctant to take enforcement action in these circumstances and so far no decided case has been discovered, at least by me.
The Bill provides that where the Nature Conservancy Council have notified the local planning authority that the limestone pavement is of interest and the county planning authority or the Secretary of State conderis that disturbance of the surface would affect its character

377
or appearance, either of those authorities may make an order designating the land and prohibiting removal or disturbance of limestone on or in it. Such orders are subject to the procedure in Schedule 10. They require confirmation by the Secretary of State within nine months. If opposed, an inquiry must be held. The only exceptions to the clause are those which would allow extraction of stone for roadmaking, the fertilisation of land and the maintenance or alteration of buildings for agricultural purposes.
First comes the question: why has the clause been drafted in this way? The problem seems to be whether removal of surface limestone by hand constitutes development. Superficially, it seems to me to be much simpler to declare that such activity constitutes development for the purposes of the 1971 Act. That is the procedure followed in Clause 1 of the minerals Bill which is before your Lordships' House and which provides that the removal of spoil from a former mine waste tip constitutes development. In view of the Secretary of State's stated unwillingness to apply the provisions of Clause 33, there must be some doubt about his willingness to designate areas of land under this clause. It is most important that assurances are obtained, if possible, from the noble Lord that this is not just an empty power in the clause as it now is, but that the Secretary of State genuinely has every intention of using it.
Secondly, if the clause is accepted broadly as it stands, the question arises: who should be able to make such orders, and on what grounds? Limestone pavements are features not only of botanical and physiographical interest but also of morphological and landscape interest. In recognition of this the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, has proposed an amendment to enable orders to be made by counties on landscape grounds. As I indicated earlier, if we come to that amendment I shall support it in principle, but it raises the question of why the Countryside Commission, the Government's statutory advisers on landscape matters, are not given the power, first to determine that certain pavements are of landscape value and, secondly, to make orders prohibiting the removal or disturbance of limestone. The Countryside Commission has the power to designate a national park or an area of outstanding natural beauty. Surely it seems both reasonable and appropriate that the Countryside Commission should also have the power to designate smaller landscape features, many of which are within national parks or areas of outstanding natural beauty. It is also important that the Countryside Commission should be able to act if the county planning authority itself declines to do so.
There are many other matters which arise from the whole of this section of the Bill, but I say most strongly to your Lordships' Committee that it is a mistake to forget about the visual value of these extraordinary areas of limestone pavement. We must all have looked at it with wonder. To rely solely on botanical considerations rather than on landscape considerations to me, at least, seems wrong. If we are to take landscape matters into consideration, the scenic value of these areas, surely it is right that the Government's statutory advisers on landscape matters, the Countryside Commission, ought to have an involvement. I beg to move.
Viscount Ridley: May I speak to Amendment No. 429 in case I lose it, in the event of the noble Lord's amendment being carried. I do not mind if I do lose it, because I do not fundamentally disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley. In Amendment No. 429 I am only trying to make quite clear what we are talking about when we refer to a local planning authority. Throughout the clause we are talking about the county planning authority. I believe that Amendment No.429 is a drafting error which has been repeated, I am sorry to say, by the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, in the first subsection of his Amendment No. 428B. I hope it can be inserted throughout the clause that we are talking about a county planning authority so that no doubt about this exists in the future; otherwise doubt will creep in, and that is not to our advantage. I hope that, for once, Amendment No. 429 is acceptable to the Government.
Lord Inglewood: I rise to support the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, and to say that I think there is very little, if anything, between the sponsors of these different amendments. If we want to follow the advice of the noble Lord, the Chief Whip, and really make progress, the noble Lord on the Front Bench has only to nod and show that he accepts the principle behind these amendments, and I am sure that we should be able to reduce our remarks to very little or nothing and get on to the next group of amendments. Shall I give him the chance?
Viscount Ridley: I hope he will not nod immediately, because, with great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley—
Lord Inglewood: I have not finished, I am sorry to say, but, since the noble Lord the Minister is not prepared to nod, I assume that he is going to say that part, if not the whole, is unacceptable. And if so, I shall ask him to look at this again before the Report stage.
Some people are very familiar with limestone pavements, because they live in an area where they are conspicuous, but those areas in this country are limited. When I had the honour to be a Member of the other place, I had nearly 50 per cent. of the limestone pavements in North-West Europe in my constituency. They are strange formations of great interest to geologists and they are remarkable for their botanical importance.
Some may say that stones surely can look after themselves—they are tough enough—but of the 1,326 hectares of limestone pavement here in England only 3 per cent. are untouched by vandals of one sort or another, and a large proportion of the rest are seriously affected. In the last 100 years, with the increase in popularity of rock gardening, which I believe started at the time of the Great Exhibition, efforts have been made to take this stone both from common land and from privately owned land and it is not just private developers who have done the damage but public authorities, too. It can even be seen on a roundabout, not far from Leicester.
I think I have said enough to show how urgent it is that the provisions to protect these limestone pavements should be strengthened. This clause has

379
nothing to do with habitat protection or with compensation and the amendments are simply attempting to clarify and strengthen the existing planning controls and to see that they are effective. There is no significant damage to agriculture in the proposals in any of these clauses.
Some might think that this is a quite unnecessary provision in this Bill, but I take the opposite view. It is 16 years since I gave up representing Westmorland in the other place, and it was already an issue when I was there. I believe naturalists have struggled with Government departments to try to achieve something like the amendments that we want to put into this Bill, and they have been met with one difficulty after another. Tonight we have the opportunity to do something really important, because these limestone pavements which we are protecting in the North-West of England are, except for one small area, the Burren in County Clare, in Eire, the only examples in North-West Europe. I support the noble Lord and those who have tabled similar amendments and I beg the Committee to approve them.
Lord Middleton: I am enthusiastic about the protection of limestone pavements which I think is precisely what Clause 28 is all about. I thought limestone pavements were small in extent, belonging to a special area—I think the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, said that—and they are indeed SSSIs anyway.
Lord Inglewood: Not all of them—only about half.
Lord Middleton: But in any case, they will be protected by Clause 28. Both the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, and that tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, refer to land in the countryside consisting substantially of limestone, composed of lime near the surface of the ground. Well, that applies to half of England. One only has to think of the Pennines, the uplands of the Derbyshire district, the Cotswolds, the Chilterns, the Downs—North and South—the Yorkshire Wolds and the Lincolnshire Wolds, and you have most of England. It is carrying matters a little far.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Sandys: I think it would be for the convenience of the Committee if I intervened at this stage to say this. While I think it would be very beneficial to discuss these amendments together, I will speak to the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, in this instance and come on to the amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord Ridley, about which I have some good news, before long. I realise that these areas of limestone we have been discussing are not only of great scientific interest, in that they provide a refuge where a wide variety of plants can flourish in unique surroundings, but they are also areas of great beauty which are a delight to many. It might seem reasonable that the Countryside Commission should be able to act positively to ensure that the contribution which the limestone pavements make in the landscape is not in any way debased.
380
I agree with so much that has been said on all sides of the Committee, and we have been particularly fortunate to have the comments of my noble friend Lord Inglewood who has such experience in these matters. But it is the executive role which we are talking about in regard to the Countryside Commission which is inconsistent with the role which Parliament gave it. The Countryside Act 1968 established the Countryside Commission, and Parliament thought the primary role of the commission was advisory. We would not wish to see this changed now. Under Clause 28 limestone pavement orders will be made either by the Secretary of State or the local planning authority and will impose restrictions on the way in which people may act. The Secretary of State and the local planning authorities are accountable publicly to the electorate. The commission is not in the same situation, since it is not an elected body.
The noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, sought assurances about the situation of the Secretary of State and wished to know whether he was likely to use his powers under Clause 28(1)(b). I can assure the noble Lord that the Secretary of State will as a last resort use those powers if the Nature Conservancy Council, acting in conjunction with the county planning authorities, are unable to act in a particular situation. We would welcome the Countryside Commission advising the local planning authorities that in their opinion the latter should consider making an order. That is what we hope they would do. The Countryside Act gives the commission the duty to provide advice to local authorities. That is all we think is needed. We are sure the Countryside Commission and the local planning authorities will want to work closely together to preserve these areas of limestone where there is risk of exploitation that would cause irreparable damage to the landscape. With these words of explanation, I hope the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, may feel able to withdraw this amendment.
Lord Winstanley: I have listened to the noble Lord with very great care and I will come straight away to one part of his answer; namely, that he felt that essentially the Countryside Commission was an advisory body and should not be given an executive function. Let me hasten to say that my purpose here tonight is not to do anything to defend the dignity or enhance the prestige of the Countryside Commission. It is merely to do what I can to preserve and protect limestone paving. I am bound to take issue with the noble Lord for a moment when he says it is not appropriate for the Countryside Commission to have executive functions. It has the statutory duty of designating national parks and of designating areas of outstanding natural beauty; it has a statutory duty to carry out certain experiments, it has a statutory duty to provide and run, administer and finance, information services in national parks. It seems to me that these genuinely are executive functions.
But I am not here to argue about whether the commission should do it or not. My concern at the moment is that the way in which the Bill is worded it seems to me there is an undue emphasis here on the general question of flora and fauna, and I have nothing against those at all; and since the Nature Conservancy Council has the power to make recommendations on the basis

381
of the effect on flora and so on, it seems to me important that we should make absolutely certain that the landscape considerations are very much to the fore and are very substantially and heavily underlined. I think that anybody who has looked, as I have looked so often, at these areas of limestone pavement will believe, as I believe, that the visual considerations, the landscape considerations, are very important indeed.
I listened most carefully to what the noble Lord said and to, I thought, his sympathetic tone of voice, although I shall have to look at the words which he used a little more carefully before deciding whether I can regard his answer finally as being satisfactory. But, for the moment, awaiting to hear what the noble Lord has to say in response to the other amendments—with all of which I am in total agreement—I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Earl of Caithness: Before the noble Lord withdraws the amendment, I should like to ask my noble friend on the Front Bench to confirm whether the term "limestone pavement" could be extended to such places as the Cotswolds?
Lord Sandys: I would not be able to give that assurance and it would be an impertinence on my part to comment on anything that the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, has said as former chairman of the Countryside Commission, because he has already identified many of the areas in which limestone pavements exist. I would have to write to my noble friend when I have obtained that information.
Baroness David: I can tell the noble Lord that they do not.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Ridley Viscount Ridley moved Amendment No. 429:
Page 26, line 20, leave out ("local") and insert ("county").
The noble Viscount said: I have already spoken to this amendment and, therefore, I beg formally to move it.
Baroness David: I am just a little anxious about this amendment because I think that the district councils have been enormously involved. I understand that South Lakeland and Lancaster districts, which cover the Arnside Silverdale area of natural beauty, are far more concerned about the pavements than are their counties. I do not know whether there can be a compromise and local authority or district and county planning authorities can be included. After all, the district councils do have a lot of planning commitments in the way of development control and so on. I would like hastily to ask if both could be included.
Lord Sandys: The noble Viscount has already spoken to the amendment and I should like to say that we feel that it is eminently reasonable that the Nature Con-
382
servancy Council should inform the planning authority who is to be given the power to make limestone pavement orders on pavements in their areas. Whereas now the Nature Conservancy Council informs the district planning authority of areas of special scientific interest, the notifications that they will be making under subsection (1) will not necessarily be confined to areas which will meet their criteria for a site of special scientific interest. The notification that we are placing with the Nature Conservancy Council is separate from the SSSI notification and the Nature Conservancy Council will be notifying the planning authorities of all limestone pavements which are of special interest. We are happy to accept the amendment.
Lord Burton: From what my noble friend Lord Inglewood has said perhaps this only applies to England; but if it does apply to Scotland, I point out that we do not have county councils.
Baroness David: Do I understand from what the Minister has said that the districts are going to be left out of it altogether?
Lord Sandys: The terms of the amendment do not specifically mention "district". As I have not had advance notice of this point, and as I have not received the information from the Box, I fear that I shall have to communicate with the noble Baroness.
Lord Sandford: In that case, I do not think that we should accept the amendment, because if the department has carefully considered the matter and decided that it is appropriate to leave it to the counties, well and good; but if it has not considered the matter at all, it is not by any means so satisfactory.
Lord Melchett: Surely they must have considered it, because the purposes of the amendment, as I understood it, was to make clear whether it was going to be "county" or "district" and to come down firmly on the side of counties. I should have thought that that must have been the main point that everyone considered when deciding what attitude to adopt towards the amendment.
Lord Sandys: It is the counties and not the districts to which we are referring here and which the Government have approved. Orders are not appropriate in Scotland.
Baroness David: I take it that I shall still receive a letter which will clarify this.
Viscount Ridley: The noble Baroness will probably get one from me, too.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
9.55 p.m.
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 430:
Page 26, line 25, after ("features") insert—
("; or
(b) it appears to the county planning authority that land in the countryside which consists of limestone exposed on or lying near the surface of the ground is of special interest by reason of its contribution to the landscape character of the area; ").
The noble Lord said: I listened carefully to what the noble Lord said in reply to the debate and I thought that he was, in the main, sympathetic but I am not sure that he appreciates that the drafting of the clause in the Bill does not really make it clear that landscape value shall be one of the principal considerations before making these orders. I shall not take up any more time tonight, but I shall look carefully at this Bill before the Report stage, when perhaps we shall have to return to it.
In reply to the question raised by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, I think I am right in saying that the Cotswolds are different. I could add that a serious survey was conducted across this country, at, I think, the request of the NCC, and that there was no question of these particular limestone formations being found in other parts of England.
The Chairman of Committees: Does the noble Lord wish to move the amendment?
Lord Inglewood: No, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Melchett: I am sorry to intervene, but I am confused about the procedure. I understood the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, to move his amendment. I thought that he said it was withdrawn rather than not moved. He spoke for some time, and I imagined that it had been moved, in which case the amendment to the amendment should have been called. That is why I want to clarify the situation. We particularly wanted to talk to the amendment to the amendment. I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, can confirm whether he actually did not move the amendment or withdrew it after moving it.
Lord Inglewood: I am sorry, but I was looking at a map to check whether I was correct about the Cotswolds.
The Chairman of Committees: I did ask the noble Lord and he said that he did not wish to move this amendment.
Lord Inglewood: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Chairman of Committees: The noble Lord cannot do that. He either has to move it or not move it.
Lord Inglewood: I shall not move it.
[Amendment No. 431 not moved.]
Lord Sandys Lord Sandys moved Amendment No. 431A:
Page 26, line 41, leave out from ("If") to ("he") in line 44 and insert ("any person without reasonable excuse removes or disturbs limestone on or in any land designated by an order under this section").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is to amend subsection (3) to make any person who, without planning permission, removes or disturbs limestone from land which has been subject to an order liable to an offence. The effect will be to make any person, not just the owner and occupier or persons acting with their authority, liable to prosecution if he removes or disturbs limestone on land which has been the subject of an order made by the Secretary of State or the planning authority.
We have discussed an amendment to Clause 26 which had, in part, a similar effect: I refer to Amendment No. 387A. The reasons for this amendment are similar. The Government wish to close a loophole which, under the legislation we are considering, might allow a person other than the owner or occupier or anyone acting with his consent to remove or disturb limestone from limestone pavements, without planning permission, and escape scot free. We do not believe it is reasonable that only the owner or the occupier should be liable to prosecution. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley Lord Beaumont of Whitley moved Amendment No. 432:
Page 27, line 6, leave out ("either").
The noble Lord said: This amendment and the amendment immediately following, Amendment No. 433, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady David, and myself, have to do with subsection (4) of Clause 28. The noble Baroness obviously has some great grammatical objection to supporting my Amendment No. 432, but I think that the substance is the same. Subsection (4) produces the exceptions when it is a reasonable excuse for a person to remove or disturb limestone
"if the removal or disturbance was authorised by a planning permission granted under Part III of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 … or by virtue of paragraph 3 of Class VI of the Town and Country Planning General Development Order 1977".
The purpose of these amendments is to remove the second of those excuses. For those noble Lords who do not have the Town and Country Planning, England and Wales, Town and Country Planning General Development Order 1977 either in their hands or at the tip of their tongues I will tell them that Class VI, paragraph 3, deals with,
"The winning and working, on land held or occupied with land used for the purposes of agriculture, of any minerals reasonably required for the purposes of that use, including—

(i) the fertilisation of the land so used, and

(ii) the maintenance, improvement or alteration of buildings or works thereon which are occupied or used for the purposes aforesaid,

so long as no excavation is made within 25 metres of the metalled portion of a trunk or classified road".
Throughout this Bill we are dealing by common consent with a number of matters where the despoliation of the countryside, or the taking of animals or birds, pays very large rewards. The noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, has already commented on the amount of the limestone pavings which are to be found in the rock gardens of the various places he mentioned, and I should say almost certainly Hampstead as well; possibly even my own garden. I hope not—but you never know.
The limestone removal is a very profitable business, and it would be a great temptation for people to use a loophole. Therefore, it is up to this House to look at the loophole and see whether it is justified. I bow to the superior knowledge of noble Lords in this House who know the area and noble Lords who know the farming operations in the area; but I rather suspect that the two reasons for which it is permissible to mine this limestone paving by farmers are in fact ones which are seldom used, which are not necessary, and which can give occasion to large-scale looting of the limestone pavements. For instance, of the two matters for which it is permissible, one is the crushing of limestone for lime. I doubt whether this is done on any scale or indeed at all in the areas we talk about. I am open to correction, but I have evidence and comments to that effect from people who know more about it than I do. I should have thought that that was something which could be ruled out.
The question of limestone mining for the purpose of building your own walls is, of course, another matter; but judging by the fact that all the way through this Bill what we are talking about is the tendency of farmers to pull up, to get rid of, extra walls, fences, hedges, and more and more to have larger fields, I should have thought that the amount of loose limestone stones which were available for moving from one disused wall to another, or for repairing, would be enough.
There can be very few farmers now who would in fact need to mine their own limestone in order to build walls. Even if there were a few, quarries are plentiful and limestone is not all that difficult to get, and maybe this is one of those small sacrifices one could ask for. If it is a sacrifice at all—and I do not grant it is—it is a sacrifice for which we would be right to ask, bearing in mind the immense harm that can be done in a small time and the enormous difficulty of policing such operations. It would be impossible to keep track of people who were determined to poach, if one may use that term, the limestone from these pavements. This is, I believe, a loophole which the measure has left, a loophole which should be plugged, and that is the purpose of the amendment.
Lord Middleton: I have considerable sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, is trying to do and I would not for a moment want to defend farmers who are wrecking limestone pavements in the way he suggested. However, I wonder whether there is a loophole, because if the local planning authority found that a farmer was abusing paragraph 3 of Class VI of the General Development Order, the simple remedy would surely to be put on an Article 4 direction.
Lord Sandys: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I were to intervene at this stage to explain the Government's point of view. Limestone is an indigenous material on many of our farms, and my noble friend Lord Middleton is well aware of the fact, and has explained, that it occurs in many parts of the country other than the areas where limestone pavements are specifically built. Old farm buildings and dry stone walls, both of which are so much an integral part of the landscape which the Bill seeks to protect, are constructed of it, and I was glad that the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, referred to this problem. He also quoted at some length paragraph 3 of Class VI of the General Development Order, which is so relevant.
I do not believe the case for withdrawing this time-honoured permission has been made out. I cannot pretend that crushed limestone is used very often nowadays by farmers for correcting the acidity of their land; farmers prefer to use bought-in lime for that purpose. On the other hand, farmers use limestone found on their land and in the neighbourhood for the repair of buildings and dry stone walls to this very day. I am sure there is a great shortage of this material for that purpose.
The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, said quarries were plentiful. They used to be plentiful but, unhappily, many of them are worked out or have been used for other purposes or turned into conservation areas, and may not be worked, so it is a problem for farmers. The main effect of making this rock for use for this purpose subject to planning control would be to encourage farmers to use other materials for these tasks which are not subject to planning control, and that might produce unpleasant side-effects. The appearance of farm buildings and walls would suffer considerably and, as a result, the main casualty would eventually be the landscape.
I would draw the Committee's attention to the 12th Report of the Countryside Commission for 1978–79 which illustrates opposite page 52, in a nice colour plate, a camping barn in Yorkshire constructed of limestone. Undoubtedly such barns, if they do not have an agricultural use, have a valuable future in the tourist industry. I hope the noble Lord will not press the amendment because I feel, despite all he said about the looting of limestone, that this problem can be exaggerated.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: It would be interesting to know if, in addition to the colour plate of the barn, there was also a colour plate of the limestone pavement from where the stone had been taken. I am not at all satisfied with the noble Lord's explanation. I felt it was, through no fault of his, extremely specious and did not stand up. On the other hand, his noble friend Lord Middleton raised a point which had not occurred to me and I will study that point before possibly returning to this issue on Report.
Lord Inglewood: I should like to add a few words. There is other limestone in these areas besides limestone taken from a limestone pavement. Secondly, I do not think that this point is quite as clear as the others. Not to allow any tolerance at all seems to me to be unreasonable, but since there is at times such financial advantage in despoiling these pavements,

387
that cannot be overlooked either. Finally, what is not generally known is that farmers have been known to sell complete walls to rockery contractors. That just shows the problem in perspective.
Baroness David: As I have my name to this amendment, I would totally agree with my co-mover that the answer was completely unsatisfactory. So I should not be prepared to withdraw the amendment.
The Chairman of Committees: Is it your Lordships' pleasure that this amendment, No. 432, be withdrawn? I thought that the noble Lord had indicated that he wished to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: I had not got that far. It is my fault, I should have picked up this point, since the noble Baroness did not in fact move Amendment No. 432. Since the noble Baroness, Lady David, does not wish to withdraw Amendment No. 433, I shall help her by making certain that her amendment is grammatically all right by not withdrawing Amendment No. 432.
On Question, amendment negatived.
[Amendment No. 433 not moved.]
10.12 p.m.
Lord Middleton Lord Middleton moved Amendment No. 434:
Page 27, line 8, at end insert ("or the removal or disturbance was an emergency operation particulars of which (including details of the emergency) were notified to the county planning authority as soon as practicable after the commencement of the operation").
The noble Lord said: Clause 26 provides that it is a reasonable excuse to carry out an otherwise forbidden operation, both if it is authorised by planning permission and where there is an emergency making the operation necessary. In the case of limestone pavement formation, Clause 28 merely allows a planning permission to constitute an excuse. It does not include the other event, the emergency situation. This amendment seeks to do so.
I have no doubt that when Clause 28 was drafted it was thought that an emergency situation was unlikely. However, I have been given an example of where an emergency arose in a limestone pavement area. A right of way was endangered by a collapse of limestone and there was a threat to public safety. So an emergency can arise, and it should be provided for in Clause 28. I beg to move.
Lord Sandys: Your Lordships' Committee will have seen that Clause 26 as drafted contains a similar reasonable excuse provision. There may be circumstances when it will be necessary to remove or disturb limestone on land which is subject to an order when it will not be possible to obtain planning permission. None springs readily to mind, but if one can instance occasions when emergency works have to be done, which might affect a pavement subject to an order, we shall be pleased to consider putting down our own amendment. I appreciate that this is a tidying-up amendment, but is it really necessary? I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw it.
Viscount Ridley: I should have thought that this amendment would be a tremendous loophole through
388
which one could drive a coach and horses. I hope that it will not be brought back.
Lord Middleton: In the light of what my noble friend Lord Sandys has said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Middleton Lord Middleton moved Amendment No. 435:
Page 27, line 8, at end insert—
("( ) An order under this section is a local land charge").
The noble Lord said: This is another of the land charge amendments relating to orders under Clause 28. I moved a similar amendment in respect of land charges to Clause 26. I think that my noble friend will tell me that these orders will automatically be a land charge, and though I anticipate that, I beg to move the amendment.
Lord Sandys: I entirely agree with my noble friend that it is right and proper that an order made under Clause 28, which will restrict the freedom of action of successors in title to the land to which the order relates, should be registered as local land charges. I am advised that Section 1(1)(c) of the Local Land Charges Act 1975 has this effect and that it is therefore unnecessary to make an explicit provision to that effect in this Bill. In addition, I am told that it is not the practice to provide expressly for things to be local land charges where they are already local land charges. I hope my noble friends will feel able to withdraw their amendment.
Lord Middleton: I am grateful to my noble friend. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 28, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
10.21 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow: I have just one very brief comment to make on this. Why is it that Her Majesty's Government have seen fit to produce very strong reasons for planning permission, et cetera, et cetera, on limestone pavements, and have produced rather weak reasons on SSSIs? I do not quite understand it. Can my noble friend tell me why?
Lord Melchett: It may be that the Government are going to accept Amendment No. 444ZA.
Lord Sandys: I think it would be for the benefit of the Committee if we awaited the later amendment to discuss that point.
Clause 28, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Avebury Lord Avebury moved Amendment No. 435A:
After Clause 28, insert the following new clause:
("Ancient unmetalled highways
.—(1) Where any ancient unmetalled highway and associated boundary features have been notified to the local planning authority by—

(a) the Countryside Commission as being of special interest by reason of their contribution to the landscape character or their historic significance therein; and

389

(b) it appears to the Secretary of State, the Countryside Commission or the county planning authority that the character or appearance of the ancient highway would be likely to be adversely affected by the disturbance of the ancient highway or its associated boundary features,

the Secretary of State or the Commission or that authority may make an order designating the land and prohibiting the removal or disturbance of limestone on or in it; and the provisions of Schedule 10 shall have effect as to the making, confirmation and coming into operation of orders under this section.
(2) The Commission or the county planning authority may amend or revoke an order under this section made by the Commission or authority respectively and the Secretary of State may amend or revoke any such order made by him or the Commission or that authority, but in the case of an order made by the Commission or that authority, only after consultation with the Commission or authority respectively.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment relates to the safeguarding of ancient unmetalled highways. As some of your Lordships may know this country was in the Neolithic and Bronze Ages covered with a complete network of highways of this kind, and the present day green lanes, as they are called, stem from those very remote origins in our history, although some of them are of a more recent date. The importance of the green lanes was recognised by the previous Administration when they invited the Countryside Commission to carry out a study of the green lanes. This study was presented by the Countryside Commission in June 1979, and has been the subject of continued examination by the countryside and by other interested parties since then.
There is a definition of green lanes which has been more or less universally agreed and which was mentioned in a letter of 23rd May last by my noble friend Lord Winstanley to Mr. Tom King, when he said:
"The Commission defined a green lane as an unmetalled track which may or may not have a right of way for the public either on foot, horse, bicycle or motor vehicle, including a motor bicycle, and which is usually bounded by hedges, walls or ditches".
This study, which was presented by the Countryside Commission, concluded that green lanes were of significance for the landscape and for wildlife, and were of recreational and historical significance, quite irrespective of their value as rights of way. Indeed, some of them are not rights of way, and this is the reason why I am raising this particular amendment in Part II and not Part III.
It was also concluded in this study that the green lanes are at risk by ploughing operations and by the removal of hedgerows, and that those activities are not all by any means controllable or stoppable under the existing law unless, perhaps, you could activate the protection of rights of way legislation. But even if you could do that, the surfaces of the green lanes might be destroyed, the banks might have their stones removed and the hedgerows will be cut down. This is a very serious matter, and it is why the journal Byeway and Bridleway said in an editorial recently:
It is vital that provision be made now, in the proposed Wildlife and Countryside Bill, irrespective of the legal rights recorded, to prohibit ripping out hedges and bulldozing and ploughing these lanes out of existence. They are an integral part of our landscape".
That is what I am trying to ensure by providing in this amendment that there shall be proper safeguards to prevent continued losses which have taken place,
390
as recorded in the report to the Countryside Commission.
On a survey, admittedly by no means complete but which was fairly thorough bearing in mind the resources of the organisation that conducted it, it was found that in recent years there has been a loss of something like 6.6 per cent. of the green lanes in this country and that that loss is still continuing; so it is important that we take the opportunity of this Bill to do something about it and to prevent continued erosion of that heritage. I should mention that the Ancient Monuments Board has said that green lanes cannot be protected under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979, which might have been a possible mechanism if we had thought of it at the time. There is, we find, a big loophole in the various systems of agricultural planning and historical controls which this amendment attempts to stop up.
There would have been perhaps three lines of approach. First, management. That can be dealt with separately when we come on to management agreements when talking about Clause 31. Secondly, control by means of the use that people make of green lanes; and we deal with that in Part III. Thirdly, protection of the green lane itself, which this amendment attempts to secure. The only criticism which might be levelled against this amendment is that when one looks at the drafting, one says that more or less anybody could use it. But the intention would be to exercise the powers in it sparingly and only in those cases where there is an immediate threat as there may well be—to particular green lanes of enormous historical and landscape interest. This is in the nature of a fire brigade operation to save the further losses before dealing with the matter by permanent legislation.
Lord Sandford: I have only one minor criticism of this amendment. It is in the second line where "local" will need to be amended to read "county"; because the districts do not want to have anything to do with highways, whether ancient or modern, metalled or unmetalled, green or any other colour.
Lord Sandys: Although we are sympathetic to the need for protecting green lanes, especially those of outstanding importance—and the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, referred to several varieties of them—we do not think the amendment is the best method of providing protection. Perhaps I may expand the discussion on this amendment, No. 435A, with the Committee's permission, to 435B, 506ZA and 511B. Would that be the wish of the Committee?
Lord Avebury: May I respectfully suggest that we are dealing with two different issues? The amendment following is a paving amendment for an amendment in Part III dealing with the use aspect of the green lanes. I was trying to keep separate the landscape, wildlife and historical aspects, which are dealt with in this amendment, and the use factors, which we can deal with when we come to Part III. If the noble Lord will be so good, can he please deal with this amendment by itself and not with those which concern use and rights of way?
Lord Sandys: I hope that my remarks will be confined along those lines; but noble Lords will be aware that a great deal of time and thought has been given to the green lanes because the Countryside Commission appointed the Dartington Amenity Research Trust to undertake a detailed study of the project and, following the publication of a report and after obtaining the views of various interested bodies, the commission submitted its preliminary recommendations to the Minister for Local Government and Environmental Services in May 1980.
The commission expressed a strong preference for protection for the majority of green lanes to be achieved by positive encouragement to local authorities, farmers and landowners and by appropriate management arrangements, including the use of formal management agreements. It also recommended on certain lanes of outstanding importance, where it proved impossible to make management agreements, that a new type of order should be introduced, termed a track maintenance order. The commission further advised that it was consulting with a number of local authorities and amenity organisations on the details of such criteria and would advise further. Prior to these recommendations being submitted, it had already been agreed that the subject of green lanes was a suitable topic for the Rights of Way Committee under the chairmanship of my honourable friend Mr. Michael Spicer M.P., which was set up last year with a view to arriving at proposals for legislation based on the widest measure of agreement with the principal organisations involved.
The commission's proposals have been discussed at that committee. I understand that other bodies have expressed their views and the discussions have not yet reached the stage of agreed recommendations, either regarding green lanes in general or the ones of outstanding importance on historic or other grounds which are the subject of these amendments and which have only been tabled this week.
The Government are sympathetic to the need for some protection for historic unmetalled highways or greenways and will need to give careful consideration to the procedure and criteria which would be appropriate. We would naturally welcome the views of various interested bodies and the Spicer Committee as a whole on these matters. In the light of what I have said, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Avebury: I am grateful to the Minister for what sounded like a sympathetic answer. I am not sure what the time-scale of these consultations may be and whether he was intending to come back with a further statement when we reached Report stage. In the hope that that might be the case, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 10 [Procedure in connection with certain orders under Part II]:
Lord Avebury Lord Avebury had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 435B:
Page 68, line 26, at end insert ("or under section [Greenways] of Part III").
The noble Lord said: As I have already explained, this is a paving amendment for an amendment to be moved after Clause 42 in Part III. As it would be more appropriate to discuss it among amendments then, I prefer to withdraw this amendment now, if the Committee see fit to pass my amendment in Part III, then we can insert this consequential one at Report stage. Therefore I do not move this amendment.
[Amendment No. 435B not moved.]
[Amendment No. 436 not moved.]
Lord Sandys Lord Sandys moved Amendments Nos. 437, 438 and 439:
Page 69, line 30, leave out ("county")
Page 69, line 37, at end insert—
("( ) In this paragraph "planning authority" means county planning authority in relation to England and Wales and regional or general planning authority in relation to Scotland.")
Page 70, line 28, after ("of") insert ("section 210 of").
The noble Lord said: These amendments hang together and are consequential. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 10, as amended, agreed to.
[Amendment No. 440 not moved.]
Clause 29 [National nature reserves]:
10.28 p.m.
Lord Gibson-Watt Lord Gibson-Watt moved Amendment No. 441:
Page 27, line 30, at end insert—
("Provided that byelaws under this section shall not prohibit or restrict the entry into or movement within a national nature reserve of any person acting in the exercise of any lawful right or privilege.").
The noble Lord said: Although I shall not take up a great deal of time (and I see the Chief Whip looking at me) in moving this amendment, it is an important one. Subsection (4) imports into this Bill Section 20 (2) and (3) of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949. Section 20(2) sets out the several purposes for which by-laws may be made in nature reserves, and these include by-laws prohibiting or restricting entry into those nature reserves. The proviso to subsection (2) safeguards exercise by any person of a right vested in him as an owner, lessee or occupier. That is all right as far as it goes. I believe that there is reason to go farther than that, and in this amendment there is the proviso for insertion in Clause 29 of the Bill of:
"in the exercise of any lawful right or privilege".
This amendment would not make it possible for such people to do damage in nature reserves. I am trying to establish that those who had a traditional right of access shall not be prejudiced. This could apply to many people both on foot or on horses who from time immemorial have gone to these areas. I wish only that the Government will ensure that their traditional right should not be prejudiced. I beg to move.
Lord Margadale: I should like strongly to support my noble friend on my left.
Lord Sandys: I entirely agree with my noble friends that it is not desirable that by-laws made by the Nature

393
Conservancy Council should be able to impede any lawful right of entry into or movement within a nature reserve. I am unsure, however, whether the amendment would be more effective in achieving that aim than subsection 20(2) of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949. That subsection, which subsection 29(4) of the Bill applies to by-laws made under this Bill, states:
"Provided that by-laws under this section shall not interfere with the exercise by any person of a right vested in him as owner, lessee or occupier of land in a nature reserve, or in the case of such land in Scotland as limited owner thereof, or with the exercise of any public right of way or of any functions of statutory undertakers, of a river board or any other drainage authority"
et cetera. If that provision is unsatisfactory to my noble friends, I shall be pleased to consider their amendment. I hope that will cover the point.
Lord Gibson-Watt: I am grateful to my noble friend, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 29 shall stand part of the Bill?
10.32 p.m.
Lord Melchett: I gave the noble Earl notice some time ago that I was interested in having a little information about the steps which the Nature Conservancy Council will expect the voluntary organisations, and in particular the county naturalists' trusts, to take to ensure that their reserves are recognised as national nature reserves, as the provisions of Clause 29 allows. However, it seems to me a rather detailed point and I wonder whether it would be helpful if the noble Earl were to write to me about it rather than to have a discussion about it now.
Lord Sandys: My noble friend will write to the noble Lord.
Lord Melchett: I am grateful to the Chief Whip and to the noble Lord.
Clause 29 agreed to.
Clause 30 [Grants and loans by Nature Conservancy Council]:
Lord Melchett Lord Melchett moved Amendment No. 442:
Page 28, line 2, after ("conservation") insert ("the protection of wildlife or the study of natural history").
The noble Lord said: This is a minor point, relating to grants and loans made by the Nature Conservancy Council. It is really part of some amendments we shall be coming to later. But it is worth taking it separately, I think, and with it goes Amendment No. 443.
In making grants and in supporting activities to do with wildlife in future, in view of the very wide-ranging nature of this Bill and, I think, of the more open approach that there is among nature conservationists to the amateur and general interest in wildlife among ordinary people, I was hoping that we might remove our rather artificial restriction to conservation and widen the scope of the Nature Conservancy Council's activities to the protection of wildlife and the study of
394
natural history. It seems to me more in tune with the sorts of interest held by the majority of people in this country. While I do not want in any way to dilute the scientific expertise of the NCC, for which we have been extremely grateful during the course of the day, though it has not yet produced the results we all want, I should like to see them adopting this sort of approach, which I think would encourage the many ordinary people in this country who are interested in wildlife to see the NCC as an organisation catering for them rather than simply for the specialist. I beg to move.
Lord Sandys: This amendment anticipates to some extent Amendment No. 463 which seeks to enlarge the functions of the Nature Conservancy Council. I do not wish to anticipate our discussion on that amendment, but merely to address my remarks to the amendment as it stands. The intention of Clause 30 is to enlarge the council's scope for providing financial assistance, by grant, and now by loan, to projects which are, in their opinion, conducive to nature conservation or, again in their opinion, would engender an understanding of nature conservation. The amendment seeks to enlarge this function still further, in that it would be possible for the Nature Conservancy Council, if the amendment were carried, to provide financial assistance for anything which was conducive to the study of natural history. That, I am sure, is a worthy cause, but it is not entirely appropriate for the purposes carried out by the Nature Conservancy Council. That is nature conservation, and nature conservation implies a certain end product, and a certain physical wellbeing or preservation. But the study of natural history may be undertaken for no other purpose than sheer interest, and why not?
The Nature Conservancy Council has always been concerned with the conservation of all wildlife, with natural history, and with their enjoyment by the public, when allied to the purposes for which the council was primarily set up. Where the study of natural history has, as its end product, a positive benefit to nature conservation, then the council would certainly consider any such project along with the other projects as a claim on their resources. Indeed, in the past they have done so. As an example, they provided a grant to the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds which was devoted to the building of an information room and a hide for use by the public at the Snettisham Pitts Nature Reserve in Norfolk, and, again, a grant to the Somerset County Trust to convert buildings into a lecture room with film projection facilities at Fyne Court interpretation centre. Similarly, they have funded an investigation into the history and distribution of the Bog-Rush with the object of re-establishing this species near Loch Tummel. The end product in each of these cases was nature conservation. We would not wish to extend the grant-making powers and the new loan-making power beyond the needs of nature conservation and I would request that this amendment be withdrawn, after those examples.
Lord Melchett: I only wish that the Nature Conservancy Council still had sufficient funds to support the kind of wildlife projects to which the noble Lord has drawn our attention. I think it would be sensible

395
at this stage to withdraw the amendment. But I must say that I did not find the noble Lord's reply at all convincing, and I had the feeling that he did not find it terribly convincing in parts. But the substantive amendment is No. 463, and maybe I can see what the Government's response is to that, before deciding whether to come back to this at Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 443 not moved.]
10.38 p.m.
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 444:
Page 28, line 10, at end insert—
("( ) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (3) above, the council shall ensure that any person receiving a grant or loan under this section in respect of premises to which the public are to be admitted, whether on payment or otherwise, shall, in the means of access both to and within the premises, and in the parking facilities and sanitary conveniences to be available (if any) make provision, insofar as it is in the circumstances both practicable and reasonable, for the needs of members of the public visiting the premises who are disabled.").
The noble Baroness said: In the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, I beg to move this amendment and will also speak to Amendments Nos. 455 and 467, which also deal with the disabled. Amendment No. 444 is in relation to the Nature Conservancy Council, No. 455 is in relation to county councils and No. 467 is in relation to national parks. I am sure that the general point of wanting to do the best we can for the disabled in all cases will be recognised, but I should like to emphasise a few other points.
It is not just people in wheelchairs, but people with weak hearts, defective eyesight and stroke sufferers who must also be thought of. The planners should remember to install wicket gates rather than stiles, to lay loose gravel rather than compacted hoggin and not to put steps where they could put a ramp. Rails on both sides of a path are needed for people who can use only one hand, so that it is all right for going up and down. If there are wooden bridges, they should have well-jointed planks along or across.
There have been some very good and imaginative things done. The hides of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds have, in many cases, been very well planned, so that there is a good entrance for wheelchairs and the window or slot, which people look through, is at the right height. There is a good example at the Leicestershire and Rutland Naturalists' Trust, where there is one overlooking the wildfowl reserve at Rutland Water. The Nature Conservancy Council has recently constructed a special nature trail for the disabled through part of its Evergorge woodland reserve in the Mendips. There is a gently contoured path of compacted and binded quarry chippings which leads from the car park and information kiosk to a superb viewing point across the treetops of this fine limestone gorge. It has large trailside signs identifying features for those with poor sight.
On the debit side there are occasional unimaginative entrances to Forestry Commission woodlands, where wicket gates are locked against motor cyclists, thus denying access to those who cannot climb stiles.
396
This need not be. The Lea Valley Regional Park has devised a type of kissing gate which will let wheelchairs through, but not motor bikes. Visually handicapped people particularly need to be provided for. Their hearing is often very good. They can enjoy natural sounds—bird song—particularly well. The Wildfowl Trust at Slimbridge has provided for listening posts with tape recorded information at points along the paths through the wildfowl collection. Braille notices have been put in some places along the nature trail, replacing the usual trail booklet. And tactile maps are important to provide in some areas.
I have mentioned a few of the things which can be done. We should do the best we can for the disabled in our parks and in the countryside. The Disabled Living Foundation has done a lot of work on this. They have a physical recreation project which provides a lot of ideas. These amendments are quite uncontroversial, and I hope that they will be accepted. I beg to move.
Lord Middleton: I have the greatest sympathy with these amendments which have been moved by the noble Baroness. The Country Landowners' Association has recently established a charitable trust with the principal object of encouraging and helping landowners to provide facilities for the mentally and physically handicapped to enjoy sport and recreation, especially in the countryside. These amendments are parallel with the aims of the CLA's charitable trust. If these or similar amendments are made to the Bill, assuming that the trust is a success, which it is anticipated that it will be, co-operation between the Nature Conservancy Council, the Countryside Commission and the trust can be assured.
Lord Sandys: In this International Year of the Disabled we want to make every effort within available resources to help disabled people enjoy the benefits of countryside recreation, but it would be unwise to interfere with the judgment of the Nature Conservancy Council and the national park authorities in their consideration of projects for grant aid. Clauses 30 and 34 leave these bodies free to impose on a grant any conditions that they think fit. They are public bodies, and we should trust them to pay proper regard to the needs of the handicapped. The national park committees are in any case, as organs of local government, bound by statutory obligations placed on local authorities generally by the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970.
As to the Schedule 11 amendment, the Countryside Commission are already and will continue to be bound by paragraph 13(2) of the schedule and therefore are statutorily obliged to report on everything they have been concerned with during the year that they consider to be of general public interest. It is perfectly plain from their statement on page 19 of the annual report that they are not neglecting the interests of the disabled. They have promised an advisory booklet suggesting simple, sensitive solutions to the design problems mentioned by the noble Baroness. I am very glad that she brought out the problem so clearly. These are concerned principally with the problems of access for disabled people. We should go on trusting these public bodies and should not interfere with

397
their judgment as to what they should or should not include in their annual reports.
I hope your Lordships will realise that these are very well-meaning amendments, but unfortunately they involve undue statutory interference in the performance by these public bodies of their duties, and I must ask the noble Baroness whether she will withdraw the amendments.
Lord Melchett: I am a little surprised to hear from the mouth of this Government the suggestion that it is wrong to limit the scope and activities of public bodies. When the noble Lord said, "public bodies", I think he meant Quangos, and I thought the Government were quite keen on making sure that they were controlled fairly strictly. Apart from that, it seems to me that the noble Lord is not really responding to the amendments in the spirit in which they were moved, and certainly not in the spirit of the International Year of the Disabled. He said that the national park authorities were covered as they were made up of local authorities—by the Chronically Sick and Disabled Act, as I understood it.
Would it not be sensible, and a reasonable, moderate step, to ensure that the Countryside Commission and the NCC have the same statutory duties placed on them as has been felt necessary by Parliament to place on local authorities? I should have thought that it would be more desirable to place such a statutory duty on bodies appointed by Ministers than on democratically elected local government; but we have felt it necessary to pass the Chronically Sick and Disabled Act, to place such duties on local government, and that covers national park authorities. It seems to me to be eminently reasonable, and not intending any criticism of the Countryside Commission or the NCC at all, that in this particular year, with this Bill going through the House, we should place a similar duty on those two organisations. I see nothing wrong with that and I hope the noble Lord may be a little more forthcoming in his response.
Lord Winstanley: Before the noble Lord replies finally, it might be helpful if I were to add a word. Naturally as I am no longer the chairman of the Countryside Commission I am not in a position to commit it to any course of action; nor indeed am I in a position to say precisely what it might or might not do. But I am bound to say that from my experience of the commission it would be very glad indeed to have this responsibility placed on its shoulders and would certainly undertake it gladly.
Noble Lords in the Committee might care to know that, in a fortnight's time, the Countryside Commission is jointly sponsoring a two-day conference on opportunities for open-air recreation for the disabled in our national parks. At that conference representatives from almost all the national parks will be attending to explain what special provisions are in the national parks to provide enjoyment for the disabled. I think it is right that I should make it clear that I am quite certain, from my knowledge of the commission, that, were this duty to be placed on their shoulders, they would welcome it.
Baroness David: I hope, with those words from the noble Lord, that the Minister will change his mind
398
and decide to accept these very simple, straightforward, uncontroversial amendments.
Lord Chelwood: Before the noble Lord replies, perhaps I might intervene, in case it is helpful. As I have said on a number of occasions, I cannot, of course, speak for the Nature Conservancy Council. I am simply an undistinguished and rather junior member of it, but I would certainly argue the case for these amendments in council and I should be very surprised indeed if I did not carry them with me.
Lord Sandys: I think it has been of great benefit to hear both the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, and my noble friend Lord Chelwood, respond to the suggestions which have been made. The Government are very sensitive to the situation regarding the disabled in this particular year and I shall be happy to consider the position in a little more detail, especially after what the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, has said, and if it would benefit the position of the disabled generally to cast a statutory obligation upon a public body I think we should consider it again before Report stage.
Baroness David: With that assurance, I thank the noble Lord and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 30 agreed to.
Lord Denham: As I understand that the next amendment in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, and the noble Baroness, Lady David, is expected to take not less than a quarter of an hour and possibly more, and as it is the general agreement that when the House is sitting at eleven o'clock on a Friday morning it is unfair to the facilities generally to go beyond 11 p.m. on the Thursday, I think this is the place where we must stop. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

  GREY SEAL PUPS: 1980 HARVEST
  GREY SEAL PUPS: 1980 HARVEST
  GREY SEAL CORPSES AND MUCKLE GREENHOLM
  GREY SEAL CORPSES AND MUCKLE GREENHOLM
  CITES: PROCEDURES ON APPENDICES I AND II
  CITES: PROCEDURES ON APPENDICES I AND II
  JUNIOR ATTENDANCE CENTRES
  JUNIOR ATTENDANCE CENTRES
  THE NEUTRON BOMB AND THE US ADMINISTRATION
  THE NEUTRON BOMB AND THE US ADMINISTRATION
  THE NEUTRON BOMB: EFFECTS ON DEPLOYMENT
  THE NEUTRON BOMB: EFFECTS ON DEPLOYMENT
  THE CAPLAN REPORT
  THE CAPLAN REPORT