Sitting of 5 March 1981

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
DEATH OF A MEMBER
Mr. Speaker: I regret to have to inform the House of the death of Meredith Francis Maguire, esquire, Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone, and I desire, on behalf of the House, to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the hon. Member.

PRIVATE BUSINESS
BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL (By Order)
Read the Third time, and passed.
BRITISH RAILWAYS (NO. 2) BILL (By Order)
Order for Second Reading read.
To be read a Second time upon Tuesday 10 March at Seven o'clock.
BRITISH TRANSPORT DOCKS BILL (By Order)
Order for Second Reading read.
To be read a Second time upon Thursday 12 March.
GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL(By Order)
Order for Second Reading read.
To be read a Second time upon Thursday 19 March.
LLOYDS BILL (By Order)
COUNTY OF KENT BILL [Lords] (By Order)
HUMBERSIDE BILL [Lords] (By Order)
Order for Second Reading read.
To be read a Second time upon Thursday 12 March.
LONDON TRANSPORT BILL (By Order)
Order for Second Reading read.
To be read a Second time upon Thursday 19 March.
EAST SUSSEX BILL [Lords] (By Order)
Order for Second Reading read.
To be read a Second time upon Thursday 12 March.

Oral Answers to Questions
  HOME DEPARTMENT

    Prisons Programme
    Mr. Kenneth Lewisasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will list the proposed capital improvements to Her Majesty's prisons programme for the current financial year.
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. William Whitelaw): It would not be practicable to list these. Details of the major projects in the building programme are published each year in the prison department annual report and I shall gladly supply my hon Friend with information about specific projects if he wishes.
    Mr. Lewis: Is my right hon. Friend aware, as he may be, that there are rumours—as is usual at this time of the year—that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will find extra money in the Budget for public works? Since the prison service has been deprived for too long, will my right hon. Friend submit a special claim to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and point out that money spent on capital works in the prison service can not only have an improving effect on prisoners' rehabilitation and so on, but can prove to be a cost saving, because expenditure on capital works can save revenue expenditure?
    Mr. Whitelaw: In the present financial circumstances, my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has treated me very reasonably as regards, prison maintenance, money and new prisons for the future. Therefore, I am doing more than has been done for a long time. However, I agree that a great deal more needs to be done and that much of what has to be done to prevent old prisons from falling down would be extremely cost effective in the long run.
    Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Does not the right hon. Gentleman recall the May committee's estimate that about £720 million would be required solely to maintain an adequate standard for the present prison population? Since such public expenditure is unlikely, will he not agree that a commitment to a radical reduction in the prison population is essential if conditions for both staff and prisoners are not to deteriorate further?
    Mr. Whitelaw: The need to deal with severe overcrowding in the prisons is well known to the House. But the hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that even with measures to reduce overcrowding, if we were to manage that by voluntary means—which I should prefer to see—it would still be necessary to spend large sums of money to maintain existing prisons and to build new prisons for the future. They are complementary features, not opposites.
    Mr. Edward Gardner: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the building of prisons, because of the time taken in planning and building, is no short-term answer and no short-term solution to the problem of overcrowding in our prisons? Will he consider introducing custody and control orders of the sort recommended by the Younger

    401
    committee, but extended to adult prisoners so that the Home Secretary could decide how much of a sentence would be spent in custody and how much under the control of the Home Secretary on licence? Does—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. It is unreasonable to ask such a long supplementary question. This is not a debate.
    Mr. Gardner: I apologise for speaking too long. I merely wanted to say that I want the courts to make the decision about how long a sentence should be served and the Home Secretary to have the decision about the way in which a sentence should be served.
    Mr. Whitelaw: What my hon. and learned Friend has proposed will be considered in the debate, which is bound to continue in the House and outside, about penal reform as it affects the courts and the prisons. I am grateful for what the Lord Chief Justice has said and for the lead that he is giving on voluntary measures aimed at reaching shorter sentences for non-violent offenders. I hope that will continue. Any measures that the House might take in the future should be complementary to the voluntary effort of the Lord Chief Justice, and 1 am anxious to see that we work to that end.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. In order to be entirely fair, I must point out that every one of the supplementary questions so far has been long. I hope that we can have shorter supplementary questions.

    Members of Parliament (March)
    Mr. Adleyasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if he will seek a report from the Metropolitan Commissioner on the action the police took in respect of the march with placards of a group of Labour hon. Members on 18 February.
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Patrick Mayhew): I understand that hon. Members who attempted to march to the Department of the Environment were told that their action contravened directions given by the Commissioner to his officers in pursuance of the Sessional Orders of this House and of another place. The hon. Members concerned subsequently made their way in small groups to the Department without incident.
    Mr. Adley: Does not my hon. and learned Friend think that the street politics of the Left—be it Shirley Williams on the Grunwick picket line or the behaviour referred to in the question—are an ugly manifestation of extremism? Will he deplore the walking graffiti which does so much to encourage violent behaviour?
    Mr. Mayhew: I understand that the relations between the hon. Members concerned and the police were amicable throughout, although the police officer on the spot may have been placed in an embarrassing and difficult position.
    Mr. George Cunningham: Does the Minister recollect with approval the opinion expressed so gloriously by Lord Denning in 1975, in the Hubbard and Pitt case, when he said that that kind of peaceful demonstration in protest against grievances was part of the historic rights of the British people and that we tampered with that right at our peril?
    Mr. Mayhew: All such cases depend upon their facts and the exercise of common sense. The great majority of
    402
    the British people do not have access to the House and the rights of audience in the House, as do Members of Parliament.

    Civil Defence
    Mr. Dormandasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is satisfied with the progress being made with civil defence preparations against nuclear attack.
    Mr. Mayhew: My right hon. Friend looks forward to speeding up progress in the implementation of the new civil defence programme he announced on 7 August last year. The additional resources to be provided in 1981–82 will enable the pace to quicken.
    Mr. Dormand: That is a very complacement reply. Is the Minister aware of the growing unease in the country about the matter? While accepting that local authorities have an important role to play in civil defence, does the Minister realise that the present concern arises from a lack of initiative on the part of the Government in providing information, expertise and, not least—I am glad he mentioned it in his reply—resources? When will the Government take the matter more seriously?
    Mr. Mayhew: I assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no complacency about this matter. My right hon. Friend will shortly issue guidance to local authorities on the suggested ways in which they should make use of the doubling of the money provided for their use in implementing the programme announced by my right hon. Friend in August last year. This is an important matter. This afternoon my right hon. Friend is meeting representatives of local authority associations.
    Mr. Archie Hamilton: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the greatest contribution to civil defence would be made by a change in the building regulations by which all new houses would have shelters built into them?
    Mr. Mayhew: I do not think that that would be the greatest contribution that could be made to civil defence. The greatest contribution would be the recognition throughout the country that it is important to guard our people against the effects of radiation in the very unlikely event of nuclear attack.
    Mr. Haynes: Why does the Minister not admit that there is no defence agaist a nuclear attack? Why does he not pressurise the Government to spend money in the right direction? Is he aware that this is the International Year of Disabled People? He should put money into that area.
    Mr. Mayhew: I do not admit it because that is not true. The hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends evidently do not want the country to be able to protect itself militarily against attack. Now he wishes too deny our people the humanitarian help that would save millions of lives. That is not our understanding of the duty of Government.
    Mr. Kilfedder: Since the public have been asked largely to fend for themselves as best they can in the event of nuclear attack, are they not entitled to be given the full and terrible facts of the consequences of nuclear warfare to enable them to make whatever arrangements they can? Is not the best way to do that to show a Government film on television?
    Mr. Mayhew: The people of the country are entitled to full information about the consequences of nuclear

    403
    warfare, which it is the policy of the Government through their nuclear deterrent policy in particular to avoid. The Government have made further information available in publications during the past 18 months and more information will be available in the coming months.

    Law and Order
    Mr. Trippierasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further proposals he has for measures to strengthen law and order.
    Mr. Whitelaw: The strength of the police service is at its highest ever and I expect a further increase in London. We shall be giving particular attention to achieving the most effective use of police resources. As soon as possible, I shall announce the Government's conclusions following our review of the law on public order. The Royal Commission on criminal procedure made a number of important proposals covering the investigation and prosecution of offences and its report is under careful consideration.
    Mr. Trippier: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that we are honouring our manifesto commitment to strengthen law and order in view of the rising number of crimes of violence and vandalism?
    Mr. Whitelaw: No one can be satisfied in a world where crime and violent crime of all sorts is greatly on the increase and is encouraged internationally. That is something that every nation must deal with. We have responded by efforts which have ensured a strong police service with a high morale and more bobbies on the beat. We intend to back that with other measures which will do everything possible to protect our citizens.
    Mr. Christopher Price: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his decision to ban Saturday's proposed march by the National Front in Lewisham is a welcome decision which everyone in the borough of Lewisham feels has relieved the borough of the sort of destruction that took place on the last occasion? However is he really satisfied with the decision of the Commissioner to put in charge of the investigation of the New Cross fire—which was the cause of the previous march—the policeman who investigated the Confait case and took down confessions which turned out to have absolutely no foundation in fact? Will the right hon. Gentleman discuss that matter with the Commissioner, and, if necessary, ask him to reverse his decision?
    Mr. Whitelaw: I regret the necessity for the ban onmarches in the Metropolitan Police area for three weeks until the end of this month. There are difficulties in the banning of marches, as everyone here knows very well. However, there are times when such bans are in the best interests of preventing serious public disorder. When that is the case, it is one's duty to support the police in carrying them through.
    I shall certainly discuss these matters with the Commissioner, in whom I have every confidence. But I think that I am entitled to say on his behalf, and on behalf of the police, that they are conducting the investigation into this very unhappy incident with the utmost vigour and determination. There are no fewer than 50 officers working on the inquiry. No one can say that that is not a very strong effort. In addition, over 600 statements have been taken. No one can complain about that. I hope that
    404
    all those who are upset by the incident—and I fully understand why—will appreciate that the police are doing their very best to find out the cause and, indeed, to bring to justice anyone who may be responsible for it.
    Mr. Dudley Smith: Is my right hon. Friend aware that one of the largest growth areas of crime over the last five years has been in burglary and housebreaking, and that, unfortunately, the detection rate here is rather lower than it is in some other areas of serious crime? In view of the great and growing public anxiety, in the Midlands and elsewhere on this issue, will he pay special attention to it and hold consultations with police chiefs?
    Mr. Whitelaw: Certainly. I agree with my hon. Friend that the increase in burglaries is extremely serious. Part of the remedy lies in the work of the police and the successful deterrence which comes from catching those who are at fault. At the same time, we have a great deal of responsibility for going forward with measures of crime prevention. We are backward in that respect. I am seeking to put money into research—from the Home Office point of view—into crime prevention. These have a very important part to play.
    Mr. Wellbeloved: Will the Home Secretary consider strengthening law and order by reviewing the circumstances surrounding the case of Mrs. Jan Martin, where erroneous information held on police files appears to have been improperly disclosed to a third party?
    Mr. Whitelaw: I accept what the hon. Gentleman has said. Mistakes were made in this case and the Metropolitan Police have acknowledged that. I would wish to discuss the matter further with the Commissioner and other chief officers of police. I regard the mistake as having been a serious matter.

    Interception of Communications
    Mr. Cryerasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will take steps to arrange for the regular publication of Diplock reviews of telephone tapping.
    Mr. Whitelaw: No. I made clear in my statement on 1 April 1980 that only Lord Diplock's first report would be published. Subsequent reports will cover the detailed operations of the arrangements and will not be published. But Parliament will be informed of findings of a general nature and of any changes made in the arrangements.
    Mr. Cryer: Will the Home Secretary accept that the present report does not cover Foreign and Commonwealth interception and National Security Agency of America interception, and is so complacent as to amount to a whitewash? Will he also accept that there is accountability to this House for this serious incursion into the rights of the private citizen, and that regular publication of the Diplock reports would be at least a start in that direction, although no substitute for the Home Secretary's own accountability, because one might see in the publication of the reports a development of perception and scrutiny, even by Lord Diplock?
    Mr. Whitelaw: Lord Diplock's report is certainly important. For those of us who, like myself and my predecessor as Home Secretary, have had to carry that very unenviable task, it shows that we have carried it out

    405
    conscientiously, as I believe we have, and to the best of our ability. I am glad of that, and I do not accept that the report was a whitewash.
    I appreciate that I shall have an opportunity during the debate on the Report stage of the British Telecommunications Bill to deploy the full case on this very important matter concerning our country's security, the fight against crime, and so on. It would be right for me to reserve my full remarks for a debate on that occasion.
    Mr. Lawrence: While I welcome the Diplock report may I ask my right hon. Friend to say what steps he is taking to prevent unauthorised telephone tapping and other invasions of privacy? In particular, will he give consideration to taking the Younger report on privacy off its very dusty shelf, where it has lain for about a decade, and having a debate in the House on the whole subject?
    Mr. Whitelaw: With regard to unauthorised tapping, it is for the police to investigate allegations of criminal offences. I note what my hon. Friend has said about the Younger report and other matters. These are among the many matters which properly arise and they will be most carefully considered.
    Mr. Hattersley: Is the Home Secretary aware that many people on the Labour Benches and elsewhere regard the first Diplock report as wholly inadequate? In very many ways, it arouses more fears than it dispels. Since, as the Home Secretary rightly said, the British Telecommunications Bill enables the House to debate one narrow aspect of telephone tapping, will he agree that it would be a thoroughly good thing if the Government provided time, before the Report stage of that Bill, to debate the general position of telephone tapping—official and unofficial, authorised and private—so that we may know the Government's views on these matters and express our own disquiet?
    Mr. Whitelaw: These are not matters for my decision, as the right hon. Gentleman will be the first to know. If such an opportunity arose I would greatly welcome it because I have a duty to this House to explain exactly the Government's position and, what is more, my own very important position in this matter.

    Open Prisons (Population)
    Mrs. Renee Shortasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of the prison population is currently held in open prisons.
    Mr. Mayhew: On 31 January, just over 10 per cent. of adult male prisoners; and just under 30 per cent. of adult female prisoners.
    Mrs. Short: Does the Minister recall that about 10 years ago the figure of male adult prisoners held in open conditions was 15 per cent., and that during that period the expenditure on the prison service has increased very dramatically? Will he look at the matter again and see whether more resources can be made available for the development of open prisons, which are generally very much more successful than the old eighteenth and nineteenth century prisons in rehabilitating offenders?
    Mr. Mayhew: That aspect of this very difficult matter will be kept under review. It is important to note that a difference today from 10 years ago is that there is a much
    406
    greater availability of non-custodial sentences, and that therefore fewer cases are suitable, proportionately, to go to open prisons.
    Mr. Robert Atkins: Does my hon. and learned Friend recognise the effectiveness of hostel arrangements—which come under the same category as open prisons—such as exist at Preston prison within my constituency? Does he recognise that, even allowing for the occasional lapse, it is proving to be a most effective method of assisting long-term prisoners to get back into society at the end of their term?
    Mr. Mayhew: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend. He is absolutely right. In proper cases, the hostels perform a very valuable service. The difficulty is in balancing in each case the need to protect the public with the important need to ensure that somebody, particularly a long-term prisoner, is helped to go back into the open community.
    Dr. Edmund Marshall: How many prisoners at present held in overcrowed closed prisons could be suitably transferred to open prisons without appreciable risk to the local communities?
    Mr. Mayhew: That is not a question that is capable of a precise answer. I hope that the answer is"None," because I hope that nobody is held in a closed prison who could suitably be looked after in an open one.
    Mr. Stanbrook: In view of the increasing levels of crime, and to avoid the need to release criminals into the civilian population before their time, is my hon. and learned Friend satisfied that he cannot persuade the Chancellor of the Exchequer to devote more resources to the construction of prisons, if only for temporary accommodation, and if only for open prisons?
    Mr. Mayhew: My right hon. Friend has already this afternoon expressed gratitude for the way in which he has been treated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. There are very many demands upon the Chancellor, because each of us in his own Department would like to get more money.

    Television Licences (Elderly and Disabled Persons)
    Mr. Hardyasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many representations were received by his Department during 1980 in regard to concessionary television licences for elderly or disabled people.
    Mr. Mayhew: Four hundred and fifty-two, sir.
    Mr. Hardy: Will not the Minister agree that injustice arises from serious and bitterly resented anomalies in the current concessionary arrangement? Will he not agree that the evidence shows that a pensioner living in a ground floor flat rightly receives the concession but a pensioner, in exactly the some circumstances and of the same age, living in the flat above can be denied it? Is he aware that many other pensioners living in unsatisfactory housing conditions are also denied the concession?
    Mr. Mayhew: I know from letters sent to me by hon. Members that this concession would be gratefully received if it could properly be made. In our judgment, it cannot. Any such concession would inevitably impose substantial cost upon other licence holders. This is not something that we believe it is right to do.
    Mr. McQuarrie: In view of some of the dreadful films, purchased at high cost, which are seen on television, does my hon. and learned Friend agree that it would not be difficult for the BBC and the IBA to consider giving concessionary licence reductions to the disabled, especially in this the International Year of Disabled People?
    Mr. Mayhew: There are 2 million disabled persons. It is difficult to calculate what would be the cost of a concession to them. It is generally agreed, I believe, that the BBC's revenue should come from the proceeds of licensing. It is impossible to construct sensible and substantial concessions that will not have the effect of adding considerably to the costs on others.
    Mr. Ashley: Will not the Minister agree that there are two ways of ending this anomaly? The first is to deprive those who already have the concession and the second is to give the concession to everyone. Why cannot he be generous for once during the International Year of Disabled People and extend the concession to all severely disabled people?
    Mr. Mayhew: It is easy to be generous with other people's money. There is no intention of withdrawing or extending the concession to which the right hon. Gentleman refers. I am afraid that it is not possible to extend the concession to other people whom we would like to help but feel certain that we cannot.
    Sir William Clark: Does not my hon. and learned Friend agree that the best help this Government can give to retired persons and others is to continue with the fight against inflation, which is having some success?
    Mr. Mayhew: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. No one would benefit more immediately, and, proportionately to a greater extent, than old age pensioners from the success that is already beginning to become manifest in that fight.

    Firearms and Shotgun Certificates
    Mr. Beithasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to complete the review of costs relating to firearms certificates; and when the review will be published.
    Mr. Mayhew: The review of the basis of calculation of firearms fees should be completed in the spring and the results will be reported to the House.
    Mr. Beith: Is the Minister sure that the review has not already been completed? Will he undertake that the details of the review will be made public when it is reported to the House to an extent that will enable those interested to assess the basis on which the calculation has been done? Does he realise how much resentment exists at the prospect that this Government might introduce a further unjustified increase in firearms charges?
    Mr. Mayhew: When the review is complete the results will be made public. The purpose of the review is to ensure that those who take part in this sport pay the costs of administering its proper control. It is also the purpose to ensure that no costs that are at present attributed to those who take part in the sport are wrongly attributed. We want to get at the facts to see that a fair arrangement is made.
    Mr. Farr: In view of the fact that firearms fees have gone up by over 1,000 per cent. in the last seven years,
    408
    will my hon. and learned Friend give the House an assurance that, should the review highlight specific wasteful practices, these will be eliminated at the first opportunity?
    Mr. Mayhew: 1 feel certain that this assurance can be given, so far as the elimination of any wasteful practices lie within the control of the Government. We have demonstrated our good faith by making only an interim award. In view of the representations that have been made we shall have to see what the review throws up and try to arrive at a sensible solution in the light of it.
    Mr. Newens: Does not the Minister agree that many criminals, especially young criminals, who have used shotguns in recent crimes of violence would have found much more difficulty gaining access to those arms had the conditions been as stringent as those applying to other firearms? Is there not a strong case for taking this factor into account and making access to shotguns more difficult than at present?
    Mr. Mayhew: My right hon. Friend is not persuaded that further controls on shotguns would have a significant effect on the level of crime. People who pay attention to legal restrictions are not in the main those who use firearms for the purposes of crime.

    Racialist Organisations
    Mr. John Huntasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to complete his study of racialist organisations in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Whitelaw: The study will gather evidence not only on the activities of racialist organisations but, in particular, on the incidence of alleged attacks by members of any one racial group on another. It must be quick, but it must also be thorough. My officials are, therefore, arranging for a survey of the incidence of alleged attacks to be conducted in a number of police areas, and will also visit these areas to obtain the view of the police, local authorities and the ethnic minority communities. I cannot yet give an exact date, but I shall report the outcome to the House as soon as possible.
    Mr. Hunt: I welcome and applaud my right hon. Friend's initiative. Will his inquiry also cover the role of racialist publications such as Spearhead, Bulldog and a nasty little paper called Choice which pander to ignorance and prejudice and promote the kind of racialism and anti-Semitism that is now disfiguring our country?
    Mr. Alan Clark: What about the black publications?
    Mr. Whitelaw: We shall look at publications of allsorts, from wherever they come.
    Mr. Bidwell: I thank the right hon. Gentleman on behalf of the people of Ealing-Southall for his action in ordering this probe. Will he consider ordering a wider examination of publications and a deep probe into the heart of the organisations that base themselves on the barbarous extermination policies of the Nazis of Germany?
    Mr. Whitelaw: All these matters must be properly and carefully looked at.
    Mr. Budgen: Will my right hon. Friend undertake that, whenever he bans a march, whether a march of Labour right hon. and hon. Members or of racialist organisations—
    Mrs. Renée Short: The National Front.
    Mr. Budgen: —or any march, he will publish the evidence that supports the application to him by the police so that the public may be satisfied that the ban is being made on the grounds of public order and not on the grounds of dislike of the political beliefs expressed?
    Mr. Whitelaw: The Public Order Act lays down clearly that a chief officer of police cannot apply to me for a ban unless it is clear that the march, if it took place, might lead to grave public disorder. That must be a matter for decision based on the view on the ground. It cannot always be a matter of clear evidence. Those are the provisions of the Act, which will be rigidly adhered to.
    There can be no question of chief officers of police applying for a ban, or my granting one, on the basis of liking or not liking any particular organisation which may march. The test is whether such a march would be likely to lead to grave public disorder. That is the only test by which we are prepared to be guided.
    Mr. Hattersley: May I offer the Home Secretary the support and congratulations of the Labour Benches on the prohibition of marchers in the Metropolitan area? The march which has been prevented was a squalid affair, even by the sordid standards of the National Front. I have no doubt that the Home Secretary was right to behave in the way that he did.
    Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the publications to which an earlier question referred have fallen into the habit of naming individuals and giving their addresses, clearly inciting the recipients of those publications to harass those individuals? What protection can the Home Secretary provide for those unfortunate people?
    Mr. Whitelaw: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his opening remark. I believe that there may be some misunderstanding. Under the Public Order Act, as it stands, neither the police in their application nor I in giving assent to it, can pick and choose in a police area. If we have a ban, it has to apply throughout the whole of the Metropolitan Police area. That is so under the Act. I must also say to those who might like to choose a particular area that I do not think that, even if this was possible, it would be satisfactory because it would be possible to put the march in an area close at hand to the one where the trouble might lie. While I do not like bans I believe that, if there is a danger of grave public disorder and disadvantage to the many people who wish to live a peaceful life in an area, it is the duty of the Government and the House to make a ban in such instances.
    I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that there is worry about"hit lists". I have had a letter from the hon. Member for Battersea, South (Mr. Dubs) on that subject. I shall give the matter consideration. I hope that anyone who is threatened in that way will immediately contact the police. We shall do everything that we can to ensure that he has proper protection.
    Mr. Alan Clark: Can my right hon. Friend think of anything more overtly racist and criminal, or a clearer demonstration of a breakdown in public order, than the behaviour of the young blacks in the march through Southwark on Monday, when they broke into and damaged shops, terrorised the white population and shouted objectionable slogans about the monarchy to try to provoke the police? Will he not recognise that he has to
    410
    be seen as being completely even-handed or else he will simply add to the very discontent that gives rise to the organisations that Labour Members find so objectionable?
    Mr. Whitelaw: There were various features of the march on Monday that distressed us all. It is only fair to say that it distressed some of those who organised the march. It is important to say that too. It was extremely distressing. I agree that even-handedness is crucial, and I have been totally even-handed in my response to the application from the police for a ban on all marches throughout the whole of the Metropolitan Police area for three weeks. I note that some Labour Members appear not to like that. They cannot accuse me of not being even-handed because that ban will apply to every march.
    Mr. Greville Janner: Surely the right hon. Gentleman will agree that the dislike of these organisations is not confined to Labour Members, as suggested by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Clark). No doubt the House will wish well the study that the right hon. Gentleman is undertaking and will ask him to include the effect of marches on the incitement to racial violence in cities outside London, such as Leicester—where marches are planned—and to consider whether the law should be changed to strengthen the powers of the Home Office and the police in banning such marches in circumstances other than those carefully explained by the right hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Whitelaw: When we publish the review of public order affairs there will be an opportunity for the House to consider how marches should be dealt with. There appears always to be a desire to consider these attacks purely on the basis of colour. That is not right. There are other ethnic minorities—I mention the Jews—that feel threatened and are worried by some of the developments. They are as much entitled as those of every colour, race and creed in Britain to the proper protection of our society. It is important to say that. We are a tolerant society. I believe that the House is determined to ensure that we continue to be such a society.

    Commission for Racial Equality
    Mr. Marlowasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will take steps to ensure that the Commission for Racial Equality is balanced in its representation of all ethnic communities, including the ethnic majority.
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Timothy Raison): Commissioners are appointed not as representatives of particular ethnic groups but for their experience in those walks of life which are relevant to the work of the commission.
    Mr. Marlow: If the Commission for Racial Equality is to remain in existence, does my hon. Friend agree that it would be more effective if it were more even-handed in its activities and did not appear as a pressure group, paid for out of taxpayers' money, looking after the vested interests of one part of the community only, and against the interests of the vast majority of people who have to pay for it through taxation?
    Mr. Raison: I do not accept that the commission appears solely in the guise of a pressure group concerned with one section of the community. It is obvious that as part of its responsibilities it has to ensure that the views of the ethnic minorities are understood and their problems dealt with.
    Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Was not the point of the supplementary question of the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) that a number of members of the commission were sacked precipitately by the Government and Conservative nominees put in their place? Is it not now time to consider whether the CRE should devote itself completely to enforcement of the law against racial discrimination, and give the rest of its activities to local authorities?
    Mr. Raison: It is untrue to say that members of the CRE were sacked precipitately, as the hon. Gentleman suggested. Certain members left at the conclusion of their term of office, which applies to any body of this sort. As for the second part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, the issue was debated fully at the time that the commission was set up. Experience so far has not led us firmly to the conclusion that there should be two bodies rather than one.

    Ancient Local Charities
    Miss Fookesasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will seek to amend the Charities Act 1960 so as to relax the restrictions on the use of the money available in a number of ancient local charities.
    Mr. Raison: The Government have at present no plans to introduce legislation for this purpose.
    Miss Fookes: Is my hon. Friend aware that these charities, collectively, are trustees for sums running into not thousands, but millions, of pounds, and that those moneys could be used far more productively?
    Mr. Raison: I am aware that there has been much discussion about the way in which charity money is spent. The present system for assessing the purposes of a charity is working satisfactorily.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Ql. Mr. Leightonasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 5 March.
    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, and shall then be leaving for a visit to Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Leighton: Does the right hon. Lady recall that on 24 April 1979, while electioneering in Halifax, she held up two bags, a red bag and a blue bag, indicating how many groceries could be bought for £1? Will she, as a well-known housewife and shopper, tell us how much it would cost to buy the red bag now?
    The Prime Minister: I can only tell the hon. Gentleman that after the same number of months in power the level of inflation is very considerably below what it was after 21 months of the Labour Government.
    Mr David Steel: Will the right hon. Lady have time today to read the report, published this morning of the Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service on the subject of monetary policy? Is she aware that the report records that of its distinguished witnesses—
    Mr. Skinner: Reading.
    Mr. Cryer:Reading.
    Mr. Steel: I have noted what the report states. Is the right hon. Lady aware that those who advocated a mixture of incomes policy, sound financial control, a mixture of fiscal control and control of the money supply were the most convincing?
    The Prime Minister: I noticed that the right hon. Gentleman had some difficulty with his supplementary question. I listened to the broadcast of the Chairman of the Select Committee at lunch time, and I thought it excellent.
    Mr. Michael Morris: Will my right hon. Friend, in her travels this evening, be able to take a little time to read the NEDC report on energy prices? In preparing the Government's response, will she take on board the representations of industry that have been made for many months—namely, that British industry wants to have a marginal competitive advantage over its Continental competitors rather than be at a disadvantage?
    The Prime Minister: I have quickly looked at the NEDC' report on energy prices. I noted that it pointed out that 95 per cent. of companies get their electricity at price levels comparable with those on the Continent, but for very big electricity users there is a big difference. Clearly we must look into this as a matter of urgency and report our decision to the House quickly.
    Mr. Foot: When the right hon. Lady goes to Northern Ireland this evening, will she tell them the unemployment figure in Northern Ireland today compared with what it was when she assumed office, and will she tell them how sorry she is?
    The Prime Minister: With all due respect to the right hon. Gentleman, yes, I am extremely sorry for the very high unemployment in Northern Ireland. I must point out to the right hon. Gentleman that both Governments have put a very great deal of money into Northern Ireland. The real answer is to try to create jobs that will stand on their own and not, as in the past, jobs that require very heavy subsidies to keep them in existence.
    Mr. Foot: In a sense, I suppose that the right hon. Lady will confirm to us that she will be announcing another U-turn in Northern Ireland. In the light of the fact that she refused to receive a deputation from pensioners yesterday, and in the light also of the fact that it was revealed in the House yesterday that the overseas aid budget of this country has fallen to the lowest on record, will she tell us what text she chose for the sermon that she preached in church yesterday?
    The Prime Minister: With regard to the right hon. Gentleman's question on Northern Ireland, I shall, of course, be repeating and emphasising my personal commitment to the guarantee to the people of Northern Ireland, which is enshrined in law in this country. With regard to what the right hon. Gentleman said about pensioners, I usually see delegations of pensioners in my own constituency. I stress that the Government have kept

    413
    the pension slightly ahead of the rise in the cost of living, and our first increase actually provided an additional amount to make up for the shortfall of the previous Government. I stress also that the amount available for help with fuel for old people and for those with young families who are on family income supplement is a record. The amount available for overseas aid this year is £961 million.
    Mr. Montgomeryasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 5 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Montgomery: Has my right hon. Friend seen the reports that employees in Lambeth council have been delaying applications from council house tenants to buy their council houses? What steps does she suggest can be taken to ensure that the rights given by Parliament to tenants in Lambeth are upheld and the tenants are not held to ransom by the Lambeth mob?
    The Prime Minister: Lambeth is one of the 16 Labour authorities which have been delaying applications from council tenants who wish to purchase their own homes. We have reserve powers to enable those tenants to have their rights at law. We shall not hesitate to use them if need be. If we have to use them, it will be a total condemnation of Labour authorities and of the Labour Party for refusing to operate the law to give tenants their legitimate rights.
    Mr. William Hamilton: Reverting to the aid programme, will the right hon. Lady read the report of the debate that took place in the House late last night in which the Minister, under pressure, steadfastly refused to confirm that the aid figure current in 1980 was ·34 of 1 per cent. of GNP? Will she deny or confirm that? If it is true, does she realise that it is an absolute disgrace to the standards about which she was preaching at the pulpit yesterday?
    Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Handout.
    The Prime Minister: I think that the aid for this year is much lower. There is a technical reason which was given by my hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development in an oral reply the other day. The reason is that the replenishment of the World Bank is not provided for in that figure because of the hold-up of the agreement on it. The amount of money is there, but it does not actually come into this year, but, of course, it will be given for that purpose.
    Mr. Charles Morrison: Has my right hon. Friend noticed that Conservative-controlled Wiltshire county council has just agreed to have no increase in its rate? Will she congratulate that council, and the chairman in particular, on that achievement? Does she agree that it demonstrates remarkably good housekeeping, coupled with a sensible reaction to the rate support grant?
    The Prime Minister: I am only too happy to congratulate Wiltshire county council, as I would congratulate all authorities which act as proper trustees of the public's money and spend it as carefully as, or rather more carefully than, they would their own.
    Mr. Alton: Will the Prime Minister say how she is looking after the public purse when Conservative-controlled authorities such as Merseyside county council
    414
    are authorising a reduced amount of police overtime in an area in which, in January, the number of crimes rose by 12 per cent.? How does it square with the Government's manifesto commitment if policemen are taken off the beat in an area where there is massive crime?
    The Prime Minister: I can only tell the hon. Gentleman that recruitment and the numbers in the police force have never been higher. Indeed, there are 6,000 more policemen in the police forces in England, Scotland and Wales than there were when we came to power, and that is very good news.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: Will my right hon. Friend seek the earliest opportunity to make plain to any who may still be in doubt that any dealings with the Irish Republic, whether on defence or any other matter, proceed from the basis and assumption of the inviolability of the Union?
    The Prime Minister: Any dealings or discussions with the Irish Republic are in the present constitutional framework. The guarantee is in the 1973 Act. It is the law of the land and we are all committed to it.
    Mr. Dubsasked the Prime Minister if she will list her public engagements for 5 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply which I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Dubs: Has the Prime Minister had time today to look at the CBI report published this morning? Does she agree with the report's conclusions that unemployment will rise beyond 3 million unless there is a significant change in Government policy, including an expansion to the extent of £6,000 million?
    The Prime Minister: I have had a quick look at the CBI discussion paper. I can only say that there is some very good and interesting stuff in it. I notice that the CBI points out that it would like extra capital expenditure, but that that must be paid for by reduced current expenditure and the sale of public assets. That seems an admirable way of balancing the books. I shall be only too happy to listen to the hon. Gentleman's proposals for reductions in current expenditure.
    Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Has my right hon. Friend had a chance to consider the decision of the European Court of Human Rights that British Rail was wrong to dismiss the three British railwaymen who refused to join a union? Does she agree that that decision will have profound consequences for all closed shop legislation? In particular, does she agree that the Sandwell local authority should now reinstate Miss Joanna Harris because she, too, was clearly dismissed against the law?
    The Prime Minister: I understand that the European Court has not pronounced. I think that the report in the papers was mistaken. I think that they reported the result of the Commission. That was referred to the European Court. But I make it absolutely clear that the Conservative Party has always thoroughly opposed the legislation passed by the Labour Government, from which this action arises. We made very considerable changes, and I have great sympathy with what my hon. Friend said about the case of Miss Joanna Harris of Sandwell.
    Mr. Harry Ewing: Has the Prime Minister had time to re-read her speech of yesterday? If she has, is the interpretation of that speech that those who accept and

    415
    support her Government's economic policy are somehow exercising a Christian virtue and that, by implication, those who do not are non-Christians? If that is the interpretation, is that the disgraceful depth to which the Prime Minister has sunk in an effort to defend her tattered economic policy?
    The Prime Minister: As a matter of fact, I have not had time to re-read it. Nor do I re-read my own speeches after they have been delivered. I usually have too much to do. I point out that if the hon. Gentleman had read the speech fully and accurately he would have observed that in that particular sentence in which I set out my own philosophy, I said:
    "I believe it is a philosophy which rests on Christian assumptions"—
    Mr. Canavan: Heathen.
    The Prime Minister: Opposition Members are very little different from the Young Communists who were in the church yesterday. I am very glad that the Young Communists support that lot instead of this lot.
    I said in my speech:
    "I believe it is a philosophy which rests on Christian assumptions, although I fully recognise that some Christians would have a different view."
    416
    That is a complete answer to the cheap question of the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. John Carlisle: In the light of recent events in the West Indies, and the attempted blackmail of our cricket team, does my right hon. Friend accept that the Gleneagles agreement is being used by countries for their own political vindictiveness? Will she consider scrapping the agreement at the next Commonwealth conference?
    The Prime Minister: I agree that the Gleneagles agreement was not applicable to that case in any way. It was a case of a person holding a British passport going to the West Indies. Therefore, the agreement was not applicable—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman is not answering from this Dispatch Box—nor do I believe that he ever will. My advice is that the Gleneagles agreement was not applicable. If he reads the agreement he will find that that is the case.
    We are not able to revise the agreement, except with the consent of the other members of the Commonwealth. If the position in South Africa changes considerably, and there is more multiracial sport, we shall consider raising the matter again.

Business of the House
Mr. Michael Foot: Does the Leader of the House have a statement to make about the business for next week?
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Paymaster General and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Francis Pym): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 9 MARCH—Consideration of timetable motion on the Transport Bill.
Motion on the Appropriation (Northern Ireland) Order.
TUESDAY 10 MARCH—My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will open his Budget Statement. European Community documents 10444/80 and the unnumbered annual report on the economic situation in the Community (1980) and the economic policy guidelines for 1981, will be relevant.
Motion on the Local Government, Planning and Land (Northern Ireland) Order.
The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration at 7 o'clock.
WEDNESDAY 11 MARCH and THURSDAY 12 MARCH —Continuation of the Budget debate.
FRIDAY 13 MARCH—Private Members' motions.
MONDAY 16 MARCH—Conclusion of the debate on the Budget Statement.
The following reports of the Select Committee on European Legislation &c, will be relevant to the debate on Tuesday 10 March:
1st Report 1980–81 H/C 32-i Para. 8 and the
11th Report 1980–81 HIC 32-xi Para. 3
Mr. Foot: It is quite intolerable that the right hon. Gentleman and the Government have proposed a timetable motion for the Transport Bill. I am sure that when the House considers the facts it will realise that there is no case for that. Thirty-two of the amendments were Government amendments. Moreover, there is a whole range of questions affecting the public generally—the breathalyser, driving licences and many other matters—which should be discussed properly in the House without a guillotine. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman and the Government will think afresh about that.
We believe that far more urgent business should be discussed on Monday. I hope that even at this late stage the Government will consider it. I refer to the Civil Service wage negotiations that have broken down and that could lead to a serious disruption for the community. For the first time in history the industrial action is backed by all Civil Service unions. We understand that it is the Government and not the Civil Service unions who are refusing to go to arbitration. Will the right hon. Gentleman, in the interests of the proper functioning of the Government, abandon the discussion proposed for Monday and substitute a debate on the most important question of how to deal with the Civil Service industrial position?
Mr. Pym: I am slightly surprised by the right hon. Gentleman's remarks. With his track record I thought that he might have supported me on a timetable motion for the Transport Bill. Unfortunately, progress on the Bill has been slow. I intend to set out the case for a timetable motion when we debate it on Monday.
On the important question of the Civil Service wage negotiations, it has been the experience of the House and of successive Governments of different parties that, on the
418
whole, a debate on such matters does not further or help the resolution of the issue. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, my hon. Friend the Minister will this day make a statement about the dispute.
Mr. Foot: I doubt whether a statement by the Minister will assist matters. That is one reason why the matter should be debated in the House. The right hon. Gentleman is putting forward a novel doctrine—if he is talking about novel doctrines—that there should not be a debate in the House on industrial questions. If he does not take our advice now, no doubt he will have to be persuaded to take it later. A few week ago we heard the right hon. Gentleman and the Prime Minister say that they would not do anything about the coal dispute. They had to think again. They will have to think again on this issue. I ask the right hon. Gentleman seriously to consider whether it is not best that the House should debate the matter to determine whether we can resolve it, especially as the unions concerned have proposed that the matter should go to arbitration?
I recommend that the right hon. Gentleman should go away for the weekend and read all my speeches about timetable motions. He will come to the House on Monday a much wiser man.
Mr. Pym: I was not proposing a novel doctrine by declining the right hon. Gentleman's request for a debate on Monday. Not only have debates on such matters been found to be unwise; the House has thought it unwise to go too far even on the question of statements being made when negotiations are taking place. I am sorry, but it is not appropriate to debate that subject. It is a serious issue. A statement will be made later today. If, in due course, it is necessary to raise the matter in some other way, that can be done. It is not appropriate to raise the subject, or for the House to debate it, on Monday.
Mr. Speaker: Before I call the next hon. Member, I point out that there will be a statement before we reach the Supply day business. I know that the Opposition are anxious about their motion on education. Time that is taken now will prevent hon. Members sharing in the main debate of the day.
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Because of the importance of the Local Government, Planning and Land (Northern Ireland) Order, of which the right hon. Gentleman is aware, is he prepared to consider whether arrangements could be made to provide somewhat more than the minimum one and a half hours for the consideration of that item?
Mr. Pym: I note the right hon. Gentleman's point. It is quite possible that there will be more time to debate that order than appears on the face of it. I shall consider the right hon. Gentleman's request.
Sir Nigel Fisher: As deputy chairman of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, of which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is chairman and Mr. Speaker is president, may I draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to early-day motion 212?
[That this House wishes to be associated with all other Commonwealth Parliaments in the observance of Commonwealth Day on 9th March, which provides the opportunity for Commonwealth citizens, and in particular young people, to be reminded of the constructive role this

419
unique institution plays in a troubled world and the contribution made by the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association.]
Will my right hon. Friend associate the Government and the whole House with that expression of Commonwealth good will in connection with Commonwealth Day, on Monday next?
Mr. Pym: Most certainly the Government associate themselves with the motion, the sentiments behind it, and the observance of Commonwealth Day on 9 March.
Mr. Joel Barnett: Has the Leader of the House seen a copy of the report by the Public Accounts Committee on the role of the Comptroller and Auditor General? I appreciate that he will not want a debate to take place too soon, but will he give the House an assurance that there will be one shortly?
Mr. Pym: The Treasury and the Government will consider that report. I have taken note of the right hon. Gentleman's request.
Mr. Michael Grylls: Is my right hon. Friend aware of early-day motion 169, signed by 132 hon. Members?
[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.]
It relates to the inadequate compensation paid to the aircraft and shipbuilding industries when they were nationalised Will my right hon. Friend find time to debate that matter, as there is strong feeling in the House about it?
Mr. Pym: I recognise the objectives of my hon. Friend and other hon. Members in bringing forward their views. The Government consider that the basis of compensation for the nationlisation of companies in those industries in 1977 should remain undisturbed. I have to disappoint my hon. Friend and say that that is the Government's view.
Mr. Michael Meacher: In view of the Murdoch and Lonrho takeovers of the The Times and The Observer, does not the right hon. Gentleman accept that there is an urgent need for a major early debate on the whole question of the diversity and coverage of the press, so that alternatives to State control and to letting the communications media in a democracy be used as a plaything for tycoons' ambitions can be discussed?
Mr. Pym: I accept that those matters are appropriate for debate in the House, but I cannot find time for them in the near future.
Mr. Roger Moate: Does my right hon. Friend accept that even though there are those of us who instinctively dislike timetable motions, will he support the decision to introduce such a motion on the Transport Bill? Will he remind the House that on a 76-page Bill, after 65 hours of debate, we are still on page 6 and that if there is any danger of not having adequate time to debate the road safety measures, it is due to filibustering tactics by the Opposition? In that business motion, will my right hon.
420
Friend endeavour to make sure that generous time is given to those important road safety aspects of that important Bill?
Mr. Pym: I thank my hon. Friend for the support which he has given to me. He has alluded to some matters which are relevant to the debate on Monday. I take his point that the road safety measures in particular are those in which most hon. Members are most interested, but there is a case for the timetable motion, and I shall do my best to move the motion on Monday.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will the Minister confirm that the dirty dozen, otherwise known as members of the Council for Senile Decay, or whatever it is, will not receive any of the money allocated under the financial aid to Opposition parties as that money is given on the basis of votes and seats gained at a general election? If those people are not likely to gain any seats, are they not swindling the electorate by continuing to hold on to seats gained with Labour votes? Would not the honourable thing be to resign and to fight their seats? Is it not a strange irony that many of those people who are refusing to take part in what was known as reselection under Labour—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is arguing a case. He is not asking about business next week.
Mr. Pym: In some senses, the 12 to whom the hon. Gentleman referred cannot yet be said to have formed themselves into a party. Therefore, the consequential issues raised by the hon. Gentleman do not arise. It is clear that he belongs to some other group in the House of Commons and not to the 12.
Mr. Tony Marlow: Since the Israeli terror attacks have continued on Southern Lebanon, and since the Israeli expropriation of land and settlement policies are gathering pace on the West Bank and the Americans appear to be doing nothing about it, can we have an urgent debate about the problems in the Middle East, in order to give hope where otherwise there might be despair.
Mr. Pym: As soon as it is practical for me to arrange for a debate on foreign affairs I shall do so.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: Referring to the Social-whatever-they-call-themselves, is it not a farce that we now have the ritual of the Leader of the House reading out the business for the next week, which has already been supplied to certain selected groups? Why cannot the business be issued in the Vote Office on a Wednesday night, so that we can all have a copy, and not just the Liberals, and so on? Let us all have a copy, so that we can come prepared, knowing what questions to ask. Why should certain people get privileges, such as those on the Government Front Bench or the odds and ends on the Opposition side of the House, or on the Government side?
Mr. Pym: If I circulated the business it would obviate the necessity for business questions. Next week's business does not contain any surprises, because of the Budget Statement. However, I note what the hon. Member said.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: Will it be possible during the Budget debate to raise the issue of the consequences for public expenditure of different possible settlements of the Civil Service dispute? In his Budget Statement, will my right hon. Friend ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to spell out what sums are available for

421
the increase under the Government offer and what will not be possible in terms of other spending, if the offer is increased by any percentage?
Mr. Pym: What is relevant to the Budget debate is a matter for you, Mr. Speaker. It is not a matter for me. I have no doubt that my hon. Friend will have written to my right hon. and learned Friend for that advice. As my right hon. and learned Friend will have received so much advice, I do not know whether he will have come across that particular piece of paper. I shall draw my hon. Friend's comments to the notice of my right hon. and learned Friend.
Mr. Greville Janner: Is it the Government's intention to issue a statement about the reported proposal to install electronic surveillance outside or inside the Dining Rooms in the House to prevent guests from making off with parliamentary silver and cutlery? Is it correct that we lose about £100,000 worth of silver a year? Would it not be better to provide for guests the sort of pamphlet souvenir that is provided for guests in the Gallery? Can we have a statement before that is done?
Mr. Pym: Not next week, Sir.
Mr. Iain Mills: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that all members of the Standing Committee on Transport are anxious to proceed to road safety matters? Will he make sure that the timetable motion on Monday will allow for full debate on those clauses? Thirty amendments on the first six clauses seem to be disproportionate. I am particularly concerned that the new clauses on road humps—clauses that are in my name and those of other hon. Members, are given a full and free debate in Committee.
Mr. Pym: I note what my hon. Friend said. We shall debate the motion that we propose on Monday.
Mr. Ioan Evans: As the MLR has been 4 per cent. or 5 per cent. higher than it was under the Labour Government for the whole period of this Government, why must we have the announcement that there is to be a 4 per cent. reduction in the Budget, when there have been so many leaks since January?
Mr. Pym: The hon. Member had better contain himself until next Tuesday.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: At the risk of being considered one of the odds and ends on the Government Benches, and while appreciating that the Budget debate will allow much discussion on the industrial and economic problems of this country, may I ask my right hon. Friend to tell the House whether, in the near future, the Government intend to provide time for a debate, bearing in mind the energy report by NEDO and the CBI, which has recently been published, and which British industry considers to be of paramount importance if there is to be a stable and substantial industrial base for the upturn of the economy, which will undoubtedly come under the policies of this Government?
Mr. Pym: Some of the aspects of policy that my hon. Friend has mentioned would be relevant to the Budget debate, but until we hear my right hon. Friend's statement we cannot know whether they will all be discussed. We shall review that matter when that debate is over.
Mr. Laurie Pavitt: Has the Leader of the House seen early-day motion 208, which, in this International Year of Disabled People, seeks to do something for those who are disabled by deafness?
[That this House welcomes the installation of an inductive loop system in the Museum of London; notes with pleasure that all benches in the Chamber of the House of Commons now have this facility and in this International Year of Disabled People urges the Government to promote this access to the spoken word for all those disabled by hearing loss in churches, cinemas, theatres and public meeting halls in accordance with the provisions of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970.]
Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that every Bench in this Chamber is wired—even the Treasury Bench, where our voices sometimes seem to fall on deaf ears? In view of the changes that are taking place in the Home Office, will he arrange for a statement by the Home Secretary next week on the licensing of inductive loops for the deaf?
Mr. Pym: I am not sure that a statement can be made, but the Government support the installation of such a system in public buildings and we are trying to help as we can.
Mr. Speaker: I hope that hon. Members will be brief. If they are, I shall try to call them all, but there will be fewer questions on the statement.
Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk: May I remind the Leader of the House that we are still awaiting Government statements and debates on data protection and privacy, on the report of Royal Commission on criminal procedure and on the White Paper on young offenders? When will those take place?
Mr. Pym: I have no plans in the near future to provide time for such matters, because I do not have the time. However, I take note of the hon. Gentleman's remarks.
Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Is the Leader of the House aware that early-day motion 150, on access for disabled people to buildings, now has the support of 324 hon. Members, which is a majority of hon. Members?
[That this House, mindful of the recommendations of the Silver Jubilee Committee which called for legislative action by the Government to help safeguard the provision of suitable means of access for disabled persons to buildings used by the public, and in view of the fact that 1981 is the International Year for Disabled People, calls on the Government to facilitate legislative steps that will accomplish this objective.]
Will the right hon. Gentleman give an indication of the intention of the Government to bring forward legislation to meet the needs of disabled people with regard to access, and their attitude towards the Private Member's Bill—an all-party Bill—that is now awaiting Second Reading.
Mr. Pym: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that matter because it gives me the opportunity to inform him that following his discussions with my hon. Friend the Minister who has responsibilty for the disabled, the Government are prepared to give every assistance with the presentation of a new Bill that reflects the terms of early-day motion 150. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel that that is a considerable advance.
Mr. Kenneth Marks: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 242 in the name of the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop)?
[That this House, noting that the necessary conditions for recognising even a de facto government must include effective authority over its armed forces and police, and that the Salvadorean Junta lacks that authority, and disclaims responsibility for atrocities constantly committed by Salvadorean armed forces and police, and that the Prime Minister in her statement to the House on 2nd March condemned violence from whatever quarter it came and called for the people of El Salvador to be enabled to determine their own future peacefully and democratically, acknowledges that the Salvadorean Junta fails to meet the necessary conditions for even de facto recognition by the Government of the United Kingdom, and should therefore be neither recognised nor assisted by Her Majesty's Government.]
Accepting the hon. Gentleman's well-known knowledge of constitutional matters, will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement from the Government next week in order to make their position clear?
Mr. Pym: It will not be possible or appropriate to arrange for a statement. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister referred to the matter earlier this week. However, I note the hon. Gentleman's request.
Mr. John Maxton: Has the Leader of the House seen reports abou the meeting of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs yesterday concerning the closure of two colleges of education? Has he also seen press reports to the effect that despite the fact that the investigation is continuing and that the Secretary of State did not provide full information to the Select Committee, he still intends to move orders in the House to close the colleges? May we therefore have Government time provided as soon as possible to debate the issue in the House?
Mr. Pym: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's strength of feeling, but I have to disappoint him. I have considered the matter, and have replied to questions before. Unfortunately for the hon. Gentleman, the situation remains as I stated it previously.
Mr. Bob Cryer: Does the Leader of the House accept that many people outside the House feel that hon. Members who are elected on one basis and who subsequently resign are parliamentary cheats? Can he introduce a resolution to allow by-elections in such cases? Secondly, in view of the questions put to the Home Office today, will he provide time for a general debate on telephone interception, because the debate on the British Telecommunications Bill is only on a narrow point?
Mr. Pym: The first point is not for me. I cannot provide Government time for the second matter. Hon. Members have other opportunities to raise the matter on a private Members' occasion, an Adjournment debate, and so on.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. If ever the Government tried to take to themselves the power to declare writs when hon. Members are still in this House and do not wish to leave it, there would be trouble for them.
Mr. Stanley Newens: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that for several weeks past he has received requests from both sides of the House for a debate on foreign affairs, particularly on the policy of the new American Administration and the serious situations that exist in many parts of the world, especially in El Salvador? Does he recognise that there is a pressing need for an early debate on all the issues?
Mr. Pym: The hon. Gentleman is right. Requests have been made in successive weeks, but I have had to make it clear each week that it is not possible to have such a debate in the near future. I believe that I said last week that at some time near Easter I hoped to find time for the debate. I am sorry, but at the moment I cannot see an earlier opportunity.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I understand that two Front Bench Members wish to speak. I hope that they will be brief.
Mr. Tam Dallyell: May I ask the Leader of the House a question of which I have given his office notice? Is it intended to take together yesterday's White Paper on biotechnology and the directive on biotechnology that has been recommended for debate by the European Legislation Committee? Does he accept that that would be unsatisfactory, as they raise very different issues?
Mr. Pym: I am sorry to say that I did not receive notice of the question. It was probably not the fault of my office, as I was out before Business Questions began. I shall immediately make inquiries and reply to the hon. Gentleman. I apologise to him for not being able to reply straight away.
Mr. John Silkin: If the Leader of the House is worried about the progress of the Transport Bill, will he take on board the fact that 30 amendments came from the Government and their supporters? Does he accept that one way to speed up progress would be for him to withdraw his motion on Monday and to see that his right hon. and hon. Friends are not quite as loquacious—[Interruption.] I am hoping to put a little peace and comfort into everybody's thoughts—and that there are fewer amendments from the Government?
Mr. Pym: I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's desire to try to negotiate an arrangement, but I have looked at the matter as carefully as I can. A number of hon. Members support the view that in the light of what has happened a timetable motion is not only justified but necessary. I am sorry to have to disappoint him.
Later—
Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Earlier on business questions you put an interpretation on my question which I would like to correct. I was not asking in any way for a writ or writs; I was asking for a general resolution making it clear that those people who switch parties have an obligation to consider resigning and seek a further mandate.
Mr. Speaker: As I understood the hon. Gentleman—of course, we do not wish to argue here—I thought I heard him ask distinctly that the Government should issue four writs. [HON. MEMBERS:"NO."] If he did not do so, his point of order is valid and I accept it at once.

Civil Service (Dispute)
The Minister of State, Civil Service Department (Mr. Barney Hayhoe): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I should like to make a statement explaining to the House and to the country the present situation regarding the threatened Civil Service strike on Monday. The Government have offered to non-industrial civil servants an increase of 7 per cent. from 1 April, together with a clear statement of our desire and intention to establish for the future a new, ordered and agreed system for determining Civil Service pay.
For 1981–82 all the public services are operating within pay factors of 6 percent. for their cash limits. For the Civil Service, where the Government are the direct paymasters, it will be possible, albeit with considerable difficulty, to squeeze a pay increase of 7 per cent. from the resources available within the cash limit. That is simply as far as we can go. Other groups such as the local authority manual workers and the teachers in England and Wales and in Scotland, are settling at about the same level within the constraints imposed by the cash limit. It is evident from this that there is no question of discrimination against the Civil Service.
There are many people in private industry who would feel that such an offer at this time could be classed as good, given the general economic climate and the relative job security that civil servants enjoy.
I know that civil servants are concerned as much about future arrangements for determining Civil Service pay as they are about this year's cash offer. In August last year my right hon. and noble Friend the Lord President of the Council explained to the union leaders that, given the overriding need in the broad national interest for increases in pay to be very restricted, the emphasis in 1981 would have to be on cash limits, reflecting what the Government felt the nation could afford. It was not, therefore, possible for the Government to operate the existing pay research arrangements in the normal way, and in October my right hon. and noble Friend suspended them.
A further cause for concern is the pay research system itself, which is more than 25 years old. Over the years it has become top-heavy and cumbersome and perhaps somewhat mechanistic in its operations. It no longer commands general confidence. What is now needed is a thorough overhaul—and this is something that I believe is recognised by the unions as well as by ourselves.
I recognise that civil servants fear that the imposition of increases based on cash limits this year, coupled with the suspension of the present arrangements, could mean that the Government intend that Civil Service pay should be imposed by fiat each year, but this is not the case. My right hon. and noble Friend told the union leaders on 23 February:
"The Government intends to review the arrangements for determining the pay of non-industrial civil servants with the object of establishing as soon as practicable an ordered and agreed system which takes account of all relevant factors and which will command the widest possible acceptance".
Evidently that review has to take place before we can see clearly how the new system will be shaped. We have made every effort to clarify the Government's position and, so far as possible at this stage, to explain our intentions to the union leaders. Recognising their concern about such matters as independent fact finding, comparisons with terms and conditions of service outside,
426
and arbitration, we have made it clear to them that these, as well as other relevant factors like job security, would be covered in the review. We will welcome further discussions as the review proceeds.
The Government therefore find it hard to understand how in these circumstances the union leaders justify their recourse to the extreme step of recommending industrial action to their members. I hope that the union leaders will think it in the best interests of the Civil Service for them to concentrate on making their contribution to the thinking on the new system rather than calling for industrial action from which the country is bound to suffer.
Mr. Charles R. Morris: Is the Minister aware of the gravity of the situation that will inevitably flow from his statement today? Every Civil Service union has now voted in favour of recourse to industrial action next Monday. As a result, Heathrow airport will be closed, the ranks of the nation's immigration officers will be seriously depleted, and unemployment benefit offices and offices of the Department of Health and Social Security—every public office—will be closed on Monday. That is the seriousness of the situation that flows from the Minister's statement.
Does the Minister accept that civil servants have a right to know why a Prime Minister and a Government who never weary of expressing opposition to a national wages policy should be hell-bent on imposing a wage policy on the people who are employed in the public sector? How can the Government justify what most reasonable people would interpret as blatant discrimination against public servants?
I want to ask the Minister two detailed questions about his statement. How will the new, ordered and agreed system of determining Civil Service pay differ from the Pay Research Unit procedures and the principle of fair comparisons enshrined in the pay research operations that have existed up to now? Will this new, ordered and agreed system of determining Civil Service pay be operative for the Civil Service pay settlement in 1982? Does the Minister accept that civil servants are always catching up with the private sector on pay?
On the general issue, will the Minister invite the Leader of the House to find time for the parliamentary debate sought by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition when he raised the issue in business questions today? Surely the Government will not sit back and do nothing in the face of the action that is contemplated.
Mr. Hayhoe: The right hon. Member rightly mentioned the seriousness and gravity of the situation which flows not from the statement that I made today but from the votes and decisions of the unions concerned and the action of their union leaders in calling their members out on a national strike on Monday. I hope that they realise the particular matters to which the right hon. Gentleman drew attention and the many other ways in which the public and the country will be damaged as a result of this action.
The right hon. Gentleman asked whether this was a national wages policy. Of course it is not. It is the application of cash limits to the public services, and it was forecast last August that that would be the main determinant. I utterly repudiate what I thought was the right hon. Gentleman's mischievous suggestion that what is happening is blatant discrimination. It is not, and it is a travesty to describe it as such.

427
The right hon. Gentleman asked how the new system would differ from the present system. He is asking me to pre-empt the review that the Government feel must be urgently undertaken. He also asked about 1982. I do not know whether the new arrangements will be concluded in time to operate in 1982. The sooner that union leaders get round the table with us to discuss these matters the better. A debate on this subject is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.
Mr. Jack Straw: Does not the Minister accept that the Government have plunged the morale of the Civil Service to an all-time low as a result not only of their diktat on pay policy, but by their constant denigration of the value of public service and public servants and by their decision to tear up a pay system that was instituted by a Conservative predecessor in 1956, the late Lord Butler—
Mr. Hayhoe: He only seems to be"late".
Mr. Straw: I apologise for that slip—the former Mr. Rab Butler, the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, who designed that pay system specifically to take Civil Service pay out of politics? This Government have brought it back into the political arena. As the Minister has just told my right hon. Friend that there will be no undertaking that the new arrangements will come into force by 1982, what possible confidence can trade union leaders have in sitting round a table? Surely the consequence of what he has just said is that next year there may well be an imposition similar to the one this year.
Mr. Hayhoe: The sooner we get round the table and discuss these matters, the sooner the new system will operate.
In reply to what the hon. Gentleman said about morale being particularly low in the Civil Service at present, there is no doubt that in real terms the salaries of civil servants are now higher than they were during the period of office of the Labour Government. There can be no justification for that at all.
Mr. Paul Dean: Is my hon. Friend aware that many civil servants resent and deplore being led into an action which they know is wholly contrary to the best traditions of public service in this country? To encourage them, will my hon. Friend press ahead as fast as he can with new arrangements for pay and pensions that will avoid the disadvantages of the existing pay research system?
Mr. Hayhoe: I am glad to be able to assure my hon. Friend that my right hon. and noble Friend and I will press ahead with the arrangements. I agree that many civil servants—perhaps the traditions of that service should be acknowledged more often in the House, because we are well served by a Civil Service that is honest, uncorrupt and of great integrity—resent and deplore the leadership that they are having to follow, sometimes from Left-wing leaders in their own unions.
Mr. James A. Dunn: Does the Minister appreciate that by changing the system of negotiation before reaching final agreement on a new system he broke a cardinal rule that applies throughout trade union negotiations? That is what is resented most, together with the way in which the announcement was made this afternoon.
Mr. Hayhoe: I know that resentment exists because of the suspension of the pay agreement by the Government last year. As I explained, it was the Government's judgment at the time, taking account of the general economic situation, that it was right that the cash limits should be the major determinant in rhe 1981 settlement.
Mr. Tim Rathbone: Does my hon. Friend accept that many people in the country will accept the statement today as a clarification of the truth of the action that is to be taken on Monday? Will he also accept that many people are concerned that civil servants do not sufficiently appreciate the immense value of their index-linked pensions? Has that been sufficiently explained to them? They should weigh that factor in the scales when analysing their comparability with the private sector.
Mr. Hayhoe: I hope that civil servants will put all the relevant factors into the scale in determining their judgment concerning Monday and any future date.
As regards pensions arrangements for the Civil Service and, indeed, more widely in the public sector, as my hon. Friend will know, there has been an important report from Sir Bernard Scott. This matter is being considered. I do not regard matters concerning that report as being linked to any negotiations concerning this year's pay settlement for the Civil Service.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to call three more hon. Members from each side of the House, and then we shall move on.
Mr. Kenneth Marks: Is the 7 per cent. and its relationship to cash limits based on then; being the same number of civil servants next year as there are this year?
Mr. Hayhoe: It takes account of a reduction in the numbers of civil servants which has been announced to the House by my predecessor.
Sir Albert Costain: Does my hon. Friend appreciate that next Monday will see one of the highest tides this year? Under adverse weather conditions, the whole of London could be put in a very serious situation. The saving of lives could depend on communications and accurate weather forecasting. Does he agree with me that civil servants are a most responsible body and could not possibly be aware of the situation when they chose 9 March for their strike? Will he try to persuade them at least to postpone it?
Mr. Hayhoe: I do not know whether the civil servants' leaders were aware of that. However, having a constituency which borders on the Thames in West London, I am aware that Monday is one of the riskiest days in March. Of course, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is responsible for these arrangements—[Interruption.] Believe me, for those who live close to the Thames, this is no laughing matter. It is a matter of very serious importance. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment very much hopes that the small number of his civil servants who are involved in these particular emergency arrangements will be fully aware of their responsibilities on Monday—as I know he thinks they are on all other days.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: The Minister mentioned the efficiency of the Civil Service. I

429
shall pay civil servants a tribute, as he requested. The Civil Service is far worse now than it was when I became a Member of this House 36 years ago. With all the modern appliances, such as electric copying machines, we still have to wait three or four weeks for formal acknowledgements, and evidently the Leader of the House could not get an answer from his office for half an hour.
What is the position with regard to these people? I really feel for them—the poor, hard-worked, underpaid civil servants. Can they rely upon this new system? During my 36 years here, never have the Government implemented the recommendations of our Committee as regards Members of Parliament. May we please have what the civil servants are being offered?
Mr. Hayhoe: The last part of the hon. Gentleman's question is not for me.
Concerning answers to Members' letters and answers to questions, I know that the hon. Member will understand—as he has, quite properly, contributed to it—that there has been a substantial increase in that work load over the years.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: And in the staff.
Mr. W. Benyon: Is my hon. Friend aware that industrial workers in my constituency, many of whom have settled for much less than 7 per cent., will be infuriated if this cash limit is raised?
Mr. Hayhoe: I find that there is concern among many of those in industry and commerce who have settled for figures well below the 7 per cent. which is on offer, and that, taking all matters into account, they cannot understand the justification for the action which the civil servants are proposing to take.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will the Minister confirm that during the general election campaign nearly two years ago the Tory Party's policy was one of free market forces and free collective bargaining? Will he also accept that the Tories gloated continually, both before and after the election, about the wonderful response that they were getting from many millions of trade unionists who were voting Tory because of these wonderful policies? Is it not a fact that what the Civil Service trade unions are doing is asking the Tory Government to carry out their mandate and allow free collective bargaining to operate?
Is it not also a fact that on television recently the Minister for Trade made it clear that the present Government will give way to those who have muscle? Is there not, therefore, good reason for those trade unions that have a bit of muscle to use it in order to get a wage increase that at least keeps pace with inflation? Those industrial groups that have failed to do so ought to take that into account next year.
Mr. Hayhoe: As is wholly typical, the hon. Member is totally irresponsible and inaccurate. As regards the policy on which I and my right hon. and hon. Friends fought the general election, I quote from the manifesto:
"Bargaining must also be put on a sounder economic footing, so that public sector wage settlements take full account of supply and demand and differences between regions, manning levels, job security and pension arrangements."
We also said that it was necessary to reconcile all these matters
430
"with the cash limits used to control public spending".
Therefore, what we are doing is in line with the policy upon which we fought the last election.
Mr. Nigel Forman: Is it not the case that large parts of the Civil Service have enjoyed pay rises of some 50 per cent. over the last two years? Does not this suggest that the time has come for an ordered and agreed system of the kind that my hon. Friend mentioned, based on much more realistic assumptions?
Mr. Hayhoe: It is true that the majority of the non-industrial Civil Service has, over the period of 1979 and 1980, had settlements which come in total to just under 50 per cent. of what was being received at the beginning of 1979. Indeed, much of those large increases flowed from the falling behind which had taken place during the period of office of the Labour Government.
Mr. Charles R. Morris Mr. Charles R. Morris rose—
Mr. Eldon Griffiths: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether I may make a plea to you. Before you call the Opposition Front Bench spokesman to conclude the questions to the Minister, may I ask you to think of this point? This will be the last occasion, before the industrial action takes place, on which the House of Commons will be able to express its view about what for our people could be an extremely serious matter. I appreciate, and invariably obey, your desires to protect the balance of the business, and I understand the pressures that exist for the business still to come. However, I wonder whether, Mr. Speaker, even though you have said that you will call only three more Members, you would entertain giving some five minutes more for this important matter before the strike takes place.
Mr. Speaker: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I fear that I cannot give way, otherwise, on every occasion that I say that I will call three more Members I shall be under pressure to call five more.
Mr. Charles R. Morris: In regard to the allegation that civil servants have had a 50 per cent. increase in pay over a period of two years, will the Minister confirm that towards the end of last year a Civil Service Department memorandum was prepared which looked at Civil Service pay over a period of five years and demonstrated that civil servants had received pay increases of less than the average enjoyed by similar workers in the private sector?
Mr. Hayhoe: I make no allegation about pay increases for 1979 and 1980 totalling just under 50 per cent. I state the truth of the situation. I think that, dependent upon which base year one goes back to, one can get a variety of views about the relativities between the Civil Service and other groups. Indeed, that is the same with most statistics which are bandied across the Table of the House.
However, I hope that I am speaking on behalf of at least the majority of the House when I say that we recognise the great service that we receive from public servants in Britain and we ask them genuinely to consider, with very great care, action that will damage their traditions and the respect in which they are generally held, and which will also do great damage to the country if they continue with it.

Orders of the Day
  SUPPLY
  [IITH ALLOTTED DAY]—considered

  Education Service
  Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
  4.21 pm
  Mr. Neil Kinnock: I beg to move,
  That this House, recognising the direct relationship between the maintenance and enhancement of educational standards and an appropriate investment of resources and the fundamental importance of this investment in the struggle for national economic recovery, notes with grave concern the Report by Her Majesty's Inspectorate on"The Effects on the Educational Service in England of Local Authority Expenditure Policies—Financial Year 1980–81"; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to undertake positive action to safeguard standards of provision, opportunity and performance in education.
  It is a fortunate coincidence in many ways that we have just heard the Minister of State, Civil Service Department, quoting from a section of the 1979 Conservative manifesto. I doubt if it will surprise hon. Members that I propose to do much the same thing during part of what I have to say. It is now 22 months since the right hon. Lady gave that glutinous rendering at the front door of No. 10 Downing Street of the prayer of St. Francis of Assisi. As a background to that day, we had the Conservative document"The Right Approach", in which some pages were devoted to education. With that peculiar tone of homily which was characteristic of the remainder of the document it said:
  "But when all is said and done, the raising of standards remains the first priority …We are determined to raise standards in comprehensive schools in which so many of our children are now educated. An impartial enquiry into their achievements and shortcomings is urgently needed."
  As the weeks and months progressed and we got to the election we had the manifesto itself which said:
  "We must restore to every child, regardless of background, the chance to progress as far as his or her abilities allow…. We shall promote higher standards of achievement in basic skills."
  Right up until the Queen's Speech after the election we had the same ringing tone of homily, the same view of education, the same simplicities. The Queen's Speech itself said:
  "The quality of education will be maintained and improved."
  Those are the documents to which I choose to refer because they form the background to what has happened since. They were simple, virile propositions that we could in various ways secure a dutiful teaching force, earnest and obedient pupils and parents who exercise judicious choice and participation. It was suggested that we could have careful husbandry and use of resources and that there would be local authority freedoms; in fact, there would be a new era in the development of education. The raising of standards and the maintenance of quality were to be ushered in.
  Now, 22 monetarist months and £400 million of cuts later, what we have is the catalogue of what has occurred as a consequence of the implementation of those Government policies of simplicity, of cuts and of a determined and absolutely conscientious diversion of
  432
  resources out of the maintained sector of education, coupled with an endorsement, enhancement and sponsorship of the private sector of education to the disadvantage of the whole education system.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Rubbish.
  Mr. Kinnock: The hon. Gentleman will get his chance to make a speech later. He said,"Rubbish"; he is an expert on the matter, of course.
  The report by Her Majesty's Inspectorate refers to the whole education service. I choose to concentrate on what it said about the schools. Later my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead), if he catches your eye, Mr. Speaker, will be speaking with great authority and at some length on the implications for further and higher education. At this time, just weeks after the publication of the report on education for the 16–19 age group by the Uender-Secretary of State for Education and Science, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Macfarlane), it is important to mark that the attitude of the Government to all areas of education, no less than this crucial area of provision for 16 to 19-year-olds is scarred and, indeed, strangled at birth by the refusal to make additional resources available for the extension, expansion or improvement of any part of the maintained education service.
  What the report shows in respect of the schools, as in many other areas such as adult education, further education and higher education, is that standards of curriculum provision and pupil/teacher ratios are worsening. The children have less and less chance, in the words of the Conservative manifesto, of progressing
  "as far as his or her abilities allow."
  Secondly, it shows that standards of achievement in basic skills in subjects like mathmatics and English are jeopardised by larger classes, less individual attention and fewer qualified teachers. Thirdly, it shows that children with remedial education needs are suffering additional difficulties and that their position is being worsened.
  It shows too that gifted children are being inhibited in their development for much the same reasons. It demonstrates that the principle of educational provision, free at the point of consumption, is being significantly eroded and that many of the principles to which all parties in the House have subscribed since 1944 have been discarded by the Tory Government. Further, it shows that there is worse to come.
  The report warns specifically of worse to come unless there is a significant change in policies. I hope that in the course of the Secretary of State's speech and, indeed, in Back-Bench renderings throughout the remainder of this debate, we will hear no nonsense about the impact of the 7½ per cent. settlement made by the teachers earlier this week, because all the figures I shall use, all of the warnings I shall give and all of the authoritative judgments that have been made are drawn directly from the report provided by Her Majesty's Inspectorate.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton Mr. Nicholas Winterton rose—
  Mr. Kinnock: I will not give way yet; I may do so later.
  The power of the Opposition to halt and reverse this disastrous course to which the Government have set their hand is very limited, because of the size of the majority which the Government currently have, which is partly attributable, I suppose, to the kind of falsehoods that they

  433
  presented as their policy at the time of the election. But we try to divert the Government and to secure changes in policy, and we are not alone in that. Every teachers' organisation, education officers, organisations of parents and councillors of every political hue have made efforts over the past 22 months to halt and change the Government's policies on cuts. They have failed, and sadly we have failed so far. All I hope is that the force of argument and the authority which is embodied in this report will at least cause the Government to pause, to think again and to make significant amendments to their intended policy.
  When we have made complaints, levelled charges and led protests, the Government have invariably responded with the same reaction. The Secretary of State has been chief among those respondents. We have been accused of exaggeration, hyperbole and over-statement. He has made every effort to characterise the complaints we have made. No matter how well authenticated they have been, no matter how many documents from whatever head teachers, education officers and education conferences have backed them up, they have always been dismissed as a misunderstanding of the reality of what is taking place in the education service.
  Now we have the authority and the independence of a non-partisan dedicated professional body of people, Her Majesty's Inspectorate. Does the Secretary of State think that in this document, which he has had in his possession for some weeks, they are exaggerating, that they are guilty of hyperbole or that they are fantasising about the position of education?
  The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Mark Carlisle): No.
  Mr. Kinnock: The Secretary of State says"No". I therefore invite the House to examine with me precisely what this document says.
  I offer two comments by way of preface. First, I want the House to bear in mind that all these calculations are made on the basis of the figures as the HMIs knew them before the December announcement of an extra cut in the rate support grant. Secondly, it is necessary in the course of this debate for me—and I suppose other hon. Members—to make extensive quotations from this report, for the simple reason that it carries a force, a conviction and an authority which it is not within the power of any partisan Member to carry.
  I therefore place great emphasis on what the HMIs have said, while congratulating them on the publication and hoping very sincerely—I think officially, too, on behalf of those on this side of the House—that we shall not only see such a publication as this annually but, possibly not this year but perhaps the next year or the year after, also see an appendix to the report which will give details of the authorities to which it is referring. I think that is necessary if we are to encourage the kind of participation and understanding of the education service in Britain which we on this side of the House seek to create, generate and encourage throughout the community of Britain.
  In paragraph 9 of the report the HMIs, on the matter of teachers and teacher supply, say:
  "There are indications that many LEAs have reached the position where they cannot reduce the level of supply cover
  434
  further without causing a breakdown in schools' programmes when staff are absent owing to illess or released for in-service training."
  If I used a phrase like"causing a breakdown", that would be described as exaggeration, but those are the words of the HMIs.
  Paragraph 13 says that in one-sixth of the primary schools and one-fifth of the secondary schools
  "there was evidence of teachers teaching subjects (not only those in which there are national shortages) for which they were inadequately qualified or not qualified at all; of large teaching groups; and of classes of children widely mixed in ability or age or both. In both primary and secondary schools there were cases where the teachers' collective range of expertise did not match the needs of particular age groups."
  In paragraph 16 they say:
  "In the secondary schools … reduced expertise or lack of expertise in some areas of the curriculum; the existence of a disproportionate number of temporary staff in some departments, including major ones like English; probationers under pressure; staff teaching 35 to 40 (sic) periods in a 40-period week; and teaching groups combining pupils of much wider abilities including mixed target groups in major subjects for public examination."
  That is characteristic of the education service in Britain now. Then, in the primary schools:
  "Adverse effects on the curriculum were noted where the range of specialist knowledge and skills had been reduced as teachers left or were deployed. Science, mathematics, remedial work, craft, PE and music were specifically mentioned in several returns. There was a considerable increase in mixed-age classes, of which teachers had little experience."
  We have heard very frequently, as we heard at the time of the discussion on the publication of the ILEA report, how horrified the Government are by the whole idea of mixed-ability teaching. How many times have we heard from Back-Bench Members condemnation of the system of school organisation and class provision which conscientiously makes for mixed-ability teaching. But we get mixed-ability teaching—mixed in ability, mixed in ages—in primary and secondary schools, not as a consequence of a policy by teachers and by school heads, not in order to meet specific needs, not with the material, physical and manpower support required for the proper development of mixed-ability teaching, but because of the cuts. That is how the Tories bring about mixed-ability teaching.
  Mr. Harry Greenway: I think that the hon. Gentleman is referring to family group teaching when he talks about mixed-age teaching. This is an educational concept—not one that I support—which has come substantially from Left-wing educationists. That is what this is about.
  Mr. Kinnock: I can save the time of the House if I refer the hon. Gentleman to paragraphs 13, 14 and 16 of the report and specifically draw his attention to the fact that the HMIs would not be making a complaint about a conscientious act of policy about group teaching. They are making a complaint about the mixed-ability and mixedage teaching that is becoming characteristic of the schools as a result of the cuts. It would not otherwise be appearing in this form in this document.
  If we refer to paragraph 17 and look at the ways in which schools have tried to handle the consequences of the cuts, we see that they have tried to spread staff, and the report says:
  "further cuts will frustrate these policies."
  Paragraph 18, the most interesting paragraph, deals with the impact on children of above average ability:

  435
  "Additional stimulus on an individual basis for exceptionally able pupils is also more difficult to provide."
  This House last year passed an Act of Parliament in which section 17 referred to the establishment of an assisted places scheme which was to provide access to independent schools for children who might not otherwise be able to get it. Here, as a consequence of the cuts, the very children who presumably the Government had in mind as children of above average ability who needed to benefit from an alternative system of education are being penalised, according to the HMIs, because of the effects of the cuts on schools.
  Paragraph 19 states:
  "The stricter application of staffing formulae, combined with cuts in expenditure on books and materials, has reduced the ability of some secondary schools to provide alternative or specially designed courses for less able pupils. Charging for instrumental music tuition or for swimming has taken these activities also out of the reach of some children. The growing dependence"—
  I emphasise the word"dependence"—
  "of some primary schools on parental contributions, when added to the constraints on the numbers of teaching and non-teaching staff, all seems likely to work to the disadvantage of those from families with low incomes and other problems and the less successful pupils."
  So at both ends of the scale, and right across the spectrum—from the most able to the least able, from those who have the strongest chance of survival because of their instinctive native talent or the fortune of family background to children of low ability or children who have parents who do not give them the necessary support or who attend, possibly, the schools in that 15 per cent. which the inspectorate registered as the low baseline groups—children are suffering most critically.
  Mr. Dan Jones: I have never been involved in the teaching profession, so can my hon. Friend tell me whether this will have an effect upon the dedication of teachers as well as on the ability to teach properly?
  Mr. Kinnock: I shall be coming to that question at some length later on.
  Mr. John Carlisle Mr. John Carlisle (Luton, West) rose—
  Mr. Kinnock: No.
  My hon. Friend asked what the effect would be on teachers. One of the ways in which teachers are affected is in the refreshment and retraining that they need to equip them better to do the job that they want to do. What the HMIs register is the fact that in-service training was satisfactory in about half of the local education authorities. My hon. Friend can guess the consequences on teacher attitudes and teacher morale of a statistic like that referred to in paragraph 21 of the HMI report. What has been the impact on the advisory services which are essential for the improvement of standards of teaching, of curriculum and of attainment? The impact, according to paragraph 25 of the report, is this:
  "Poor coverage was frequently mentioned for mathematics, English, science, modern languages and for phase responsibilities, both primary and secondary."
  What is the background against which we are discussing this subject? Is it promoting higher standards of achievement in basic skills when there is only half the requirement in advisory service and only half the requirement in in-service training, when there is a reduction in teaching numbers, a growth in classes, a contraction of the curriculum and inadequate provision of
  436
  teachers in maths and English and other basic subjects? Do not the Government realise that when they are provided with a report like this documenting the crisis in the British education system, especially those parts of it which are registered by the HMIs as being unsatisfactory, they have a duty, as the Government of the whole country and not just of little bits of it which are better favoured, to make amends, to reverse their policies and to cause a new flow of finance and resources of manpower into the schools of this country?
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton Mr. Nicholas Winterton rose—
  Mr. Kinnock: I may give way later.
  The question of books and capitation, as anyone with even the most elementary understanding of the requirements of education will understand, is absolutely vital. The Secretary of State has frequently demonstrated in his responses to me and in speeches around the country his complacency about adequate book supplies. He does not see anything wrong with a system which is increasing its dependence on parental subscriptions. Indeed, he spoke in his reaction to the HMI report of book supplies being satisfactory in 70 per cent. of the schools.
  I wonder how I would react. However, I rarely entertain myself with that thought, because these matters do not often have a place in our exchanges in the House, but I know what my reaction would be if my child were in one of the 30 per cent. of schools where the supply was not satisfactory. I wonder what the right hon. and learned Gentleman's reaction would be if his child were in such a school. Would he be as complacent as he was when he made the statements that he made at the time of the publication of the report? Would he then be taking refuge in the fact that 70 per cent of schools were satisfactory in this respect? Indeed, the HMIs define the word"satisfactory" as"at least acceptable"."Satisfactory" is the word used in hospitals when someone is in between"comfortable" and"well as can be expected." It is certainly not an adequate description of provision in schools. It is no basis for complacency, for self-congratulation or for the inactivity which the Secretary of State engages in.
  Paragraph 29 of the report is one of the most damaging paragraphs. It states:
  "District inspectors reported satisfactory provision of books in just over half the LEAs."
  In reports that they had back there was reference to
  "the use of outworn and out-dated books in primary and in secondary schools and to shortages in secondary schools which resulted in sharing text books in class and the curtailment of homework. Inadequate library book-stock was mentioned in many returns."
  Fund-raising activities are no longer being undertaken for what used to be considered to be the fripperies or luxuries or for the fortunate extensions of educational experience. The money no longer goes towards providing mini-buses, new strips for football teams or for video tape recorders. Indeed, I read in the day before yesterday's issue of The Guardian—it could only be The Guardian—that parents would chip in to provide computers. However, that is not happening now.
  The inspectors record an increasing dependence by schools on parental contributions for the provision of fundamentally essential teaching texts, such as books and other materials. Nevertheless, the Secretary of State views the situation with complacency. In fact, he thinks it is fine. Last summer he told me that the situation has been

  437
  continuing for hundreds of years. Plague and starvation have been going on for hundreds of years, but that does not mean that we have to sit back and say that they constitute an acceptable system of population control.
  On every occasion the Secretary of State has endorsed his view that there is nothing wrong with schools relying on parental subscriptions as a major factor in the supply of basic teaching needs. Her Majesty's Inspectorate does not agree with him.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton Mr. Nicholas Winterton rose—
  Mr. Kinnock: I shall not give way for a moment.
  Paragraphs 37 and 38 state:
  "in almost all the schools visited and in almost all authorities there was evidence that contributions from parents in cash, kind or labour"—
  Mr. Winterton: Arrogance.
  Mr. Kinnock: The hon. Gentleman should worry a little less about arrogance and a bit more about principle. He should listen; he might learn something. The report goes on:
  "continue and that such support is increasingly important to schools … Some large schools were seeking the services of special fund-raising agencies and some staff were devoting official time to organising fund-raising activities. The amount of additional income schools obtained varied widely, but in a number of schools it exceeded—"
  I stress the word
  "exceeded"—"the annual per capita allowance."
  Mr. Tim Brinton Mr. Tim Brinton (Gravesend) rose—
  Mr. Kinnock: Last year the right hon. and learned Gentleman was challenged about his statements on school books and on the way in which money was raised for them. He had the cheek to concentrate entirely on a comment that I made, and to seek to avoid his responsibilities. The right hon. and learned Gentleman was not right, but I would forgive his intemperate attitude on that occasion and his incautious approach if he would now recant and agree that the prospect is terrifying. As the report states:
  "the general impression is that heads of both primary and secondary schools have a large degree of latitude and many rely on this additional finance to provide for example new sets of readers or mathematics books, new library books and other teaching materials and equipment. A disturbing outcome of such practice is that it makes more pronounced the difference in levels of resources between schools; large schools become better resourced than small ones, and all types of schools in areas of socio-economic difficulty tend to remain at a disadvantage compared with schools in favoured areas."
  Mr. Christopher Price: Does my hon. Friend agree that the most disturbing factor about such payments is that it not only discriminates against the poor but is also, in many cases, against the law? The 1944 Act made it quite clear that it is illegal to charge for primary or secondary education.
  Mr. Kinnock: As is often the case, my hon. Friend has anticipated my remarks. I was about to make that point. The HMI believes that this is a"disturbing practice". The Secretary of State remains totally calm and undisturbed. He has that special calm that he uses as his favourite weapon. He is a sort of educational zombie in these matters. In the past 22 months the attitude that he has demonstrated might have been enormously enhanced if he had said, or even hinted, that he thought this development disturbing. Given the legal provision—
  Mr. William Shelton Mr. William Shelton (Streatham) rose—
  Mr. Kinnock Mr. Kinnock I shall not give way as I wish to address a question to the Secretary of State. The hon. Gentleman is much more likely to get an answer from me than I am from the right hon. and learned Gentleman. Nevertheless, I shall ask my question.
  Sections 8 and 61 of the 1944 Act laid down, perhaps not specifically enough, the duties about provision and they prohibited the charging of fees. Given the legal case fought in the High Court last week by Mr. Jones of Pershore, what will the Secretary of State do? Will he apply sections 61 and 8? It is clear that local education authorities with schools that draw more support from parental contributions than from local education authority capitation allowances are not sufficient in materials and books—however generous the interpretation of the word"sufficient" in section 8 may be. They are clearly"not sufficient" in their provision.
  In the course of today I should like the Secretary of State to respond to the following question: will he apply the law, or will he come before us with a miscellaneous provisions Bill to amend it? There is a terrifying prospect that he will take the latter course. I should welcome his reassurance that he will apply the law and provide sufficient resources to stop the widespread breaching of the law. The law is either being breached or is being threatened by local education authorities, which make courses conditional upon the paying of fees by parents.
  In 22 months we have seen Tory philosophy being implemented in a way that has not been witnessed for perhaps 50 years. Tories think that the State's responsibility is restricted entirely to making a rudimentary general provision for education. They think that all advances, improvements and sophistications—above and beyond that rudimentary and very low general provision—should be purchased. They think that such advances should depend entirely on the willingness and capacity of parents to pay. Indeed, that is clearly shown in the Government's sponsorship and support of the private sector. However, their attitude is becoming increasingly apparent—although it is insidious—in the way that the Government can cheerfully preside over an education system that would be at the point of collapse if it were not for the subscriptions that come from parents.
  The Secretary of State is a barrister and a man of the law. I want him to ensure that the law is effectively maintained in this vital sector of educational provision. His reaction to the HMI report, as to all our complaints and those of others concerned for education, has been a mixture of superciliousness, statistic juggling, and semantics. One of his most powerful weapons is continually to make simpering references to national needs. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is fond of saying that the cuts can be justified by falling rolls and that falling rolls relieve pressures. He is fond of saying that all will be well if and when falling rolls provide the education service with a full surplus benefit. The HMI does not agree with his bright view. Paragraph 3 states:
  "The falling school roll is one of these"—
  namely, one of the pressures and difficulties encountered—
  "and it should be noted"—
  of course it is—
  "that its major impact is still to come. Side by side with the need for overall reductions, it will involve diseconomies of scale,"—

  439
  it would seem that the Secretary of State has hardly taken that into account—
  "the impact of which is as yet imperfectly understood"—
  that is an understatement when it is applied to the Secretary of State—
  "and problems of honouring commitments to pupils in secondary schools who are already embarked on courses of anything from 2 to 7 years' duration."
  The Government's failure to maintain consistency in standards of provision will ensure that children engaged in education will be let down. As a result of the Government's policy of cuts, there is not sufficient provision to ensure that the Government fulfil their promise that children would be educated to the maximum of their abilities. That is what the Tories promised at the last general election.
  The Secretary of State has repeatedly said that his critics were in danger of undermining teacher morale. He lectured to the National Association of Head Teachers, back in September 1979 and has been preaching the same sermon ever since to anyone who dared to criticise the cuts. The HMI takes a different attitude on teachers' morale. The report says:
  "Nevertheless there is evidence that teachers' morale has been adversely affected in many schools. Its weakening, if it became widespread, would pose a major problem in the effort to maintain present standards, let alone improve them."
  The Secretary of State visits sufficient schools and encounters enough teachers to know that that is something of an understatement by Her Majesty's inspectors. I know the semantics that he engaged in—both last summer at the Association of County Councils conference and more recently at the North of England conference on 6 January—trying to jumble up the words"quality" and"standards". He is a lawyer and an expert in the interpretation of words, and I want him to tell us the difference between maintaining levels of quality and standards. It is totally implausible for him to say that we can maintain the necessary quality of education as measured in the breadth of the curriculum, the opportunities for children, the numbers of teachers facing classes or the materials that teachers need, the attributes and amenities of schools, the extra school activities and all that is required for a full development through educational experience. It is impossible to sustain the quality of provision without maintaining standards of provision. Those standards, as the HMIs firmly demonstrate, are not being maintained.
  The senior chief inspector, Miss Sheila Browne, in the Select Committee last week, told us why the inspectorate chose to undertake the exercise and to choose and publish this baseline. The Secretary of State should be ashamed of being the Secretary of State at a time when the senior chief inspector can say that, because of the continuing economic policies, this is the first year in which it was thought necessary to undertake the exercise in that form. Miss Browne and the Secretary of State will have seen the Select Committee report and will be able to check the quotation. In reply to the hon. Member for Gravesend (Mr. Brinton) she said:
  "It is only in the last year that the continuing economic circumstances made it seem necessary to us to arrive at this baseline classification."
  There, with all the command of moderation that Miss Browne has in her power, with the necessary moderation that she has to deploy, is a condemnation that only in the past year have continuing economic circumstances made it seem necessary for HMIs to undertake the exercise.
  The reaction has been the most astounding complacency, amounting to contempt, for the maintained system in this country. But the Secretary of State told The Guardian on the day of the leak of the HMI report:
  "But this does not mean that the fabric of education is disintegrating or about to disintegrate. The HMI report makes it clear that in many respects and, in many places, the quality of service continues to be satisfactory. Mr. Carlisle pointed out that in 80 per cent. of the 1,000 schools visited, the staffing was assessed as satisfactory. Seventy per cent. were said to have a satisfactory book supply".
  He is getting so rigid in his complacency that it seems impossible for him to throw it off even when he gets terrifying evidence of that sort.
  There is further evidence of that complacency and worse than complacency. A week after the publication of the HMI report, the Secretary of State went to Bishops Stortford and gave an address to the Newport grammar school. He said:
  "cuts in education have been peripheral—school meals, overseas students, which did not affect students or provision in the class room".
  The Bishops Stortford Observer reports him as saying:
  "I strongly believe that the standards of education and its; quality do not only depend on the standards of material provision."
  That is dishonesty compounded by dereliction. It is dishonesty concerning the changes that have been made to the peripheral cuts such as school meals. Has he not seen his own Department's publication? Has he not seen the accumulated statistics produced by the National Union of Public Employees as a public service? Has he not read the"black paper" and the way in which it drew attention to the need to maintain nutritional standards and a wide provision of school meals? How can he consider that there is any value? He has failed to save £120 million of the £200 million that he expected to save on school meals and he has failed because of what he did to school meal prices and because of the changes which he made in the law as it affects school meals.
  In Bishops Stortford the Secretary of State went on to say—this is always his classic defence—that
  "we can, as a country, only spend on these services what, as a country, we can afford, without crippling the economic basis on which its potential wealth depends."
  Here is. the deepest chasm of disagreement between the Secretary of State and all those interested, involved and engaged in education, as parents, teachers, education officers, councillors or the general community. There is a huge chasm of difference between his interpretation of the national interest and their interpretation.
  In this time of monumental technological change of seismic change in the economic organisation of the world, of changes in diversity of skills of continual changes that will present challenges to people throughout their working lives that will require them to exercise various forms of creative leisure as they have never done before, the last economy that we can afford is cuts in the education service, especially on the scale demonstrated by Her Majesty's inspectors' report.
  I am asking Conservative Members to vote for the motion and to reject the Government's amendment. If they vote for it, they will not be the first Tories to act in such a way, because in the Council of Local Education Authorities conference last July in Solihull a motion was moved by the chairman of the Somerset education authority, Mr. Dowse-Brennan. He made an impassioned and effective speech, and the resolution was passed.
  Dominated though it was by Tory authorities, and by Tory representatives and Tory votes, that conference asserted that there was a direct relationship between the maintenance and enhancement of education standards, an appropriate investment in resources and the fundamental importance of the investment and the struggle for national economic recovery. Even the colonels, even the bluest blue in the shires, understand—in a way that the Secretary of State does not understand—where the real economic interests, the national interests, of this country lie. They were the ones who were insisting, with only one vote against—that of somebody from Kent, who is a positive Neanderthal in these matters—[HON. MEMBERS:"Rubbish".] Yes, he is that as well. His was the only vote against that proposition at the conference. That shows how overwhelming is the feeling against the Secretary of State's representation.
  We have a different response, of course, from the Under-Secretary of State. From that prefabricated assembly line of cliches that is his stock in trade, we have had a whole list of all the famous bits of Tory graffiti about provision. The Secretary of State, by comparison, is more apologetic. I suppose that is because the Under-Secretary of State is a born-again Tory, and the Secretary of State is a dead-again Tory. That is the only difference between them. They both serve the same policies.
  I say to the Ministers, not just in partisan terms, from the Opposition Front Bench, but in the words— [Interruption.] Conservative Members ought to take note of this, because this is the HMI report and not the Opposition spokesman. I ask the Secretary of State to take the words of the report very seriously, to recognise that he is in a shrinking majority, to recognise that there are legions of people up and down the country who, whatever their politics, disagree fundamentally with the view that he takes of the education service and of the part that it has to play in the economic recovery, the technological advancement, and the social and cultural creativity of this country.
  I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to look at the HMI report, where it says that the possibility of dealng with children with any form of learning difficulty, or offering special work for the gifted, is reduced as a consequence of these cuts. It says that secondary schools cannot easily make up for this at a later date, and that
  "The observed effects of constraints to date may therefore be more important as symptomatic of the future than the actual level and scale of effects may at first suggest. What now look like limited anxieties could become major problems, unless positive action to counter them can be built into policies".
  I plead with the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his right hon. Friends, with all the sincerity that I can muster, to take direct action to reverse the policies and to save the education system of this country.
  5.3 pm
  The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Mark Carlisle): I beg to move, to leave out from"That" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  "this House notes the report by Her Majesty's Inspectorate on 'The Effects on the Educational Service in England of Local Authority Expenditure Policies—Financial Year 1980–81', and whilst recognising the need to restrain public expenditure expresses confidence in the ability of the education service in
  442
  England, through the co-operation of all its partners, to secure maximum educational value from the extensive resources which continue to be available to it."
  I welcome the debate. I welcome it in particular as an opportunity to answer the wild allegations made by the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock), both in this House and outside it, both on the content of the inspectors' report and on the effect of the Government's policy as a whole.
  The hon. Gentleman said that I had accused him of exaggeration, hyperbole and overstatement. I have and I do. He has, if I might say so, a well-justified reputation for hyperbole. It appears that he has got into the habit, on all occasions, on each subject, at any time, of delivering the whole of his speech in one gear, which can probably best be described as a gear of raucous indignation.
  I propose in the course of my reply to deal with the various allegations that the hon. Gentleman has made in the light of the report, but before I do so I should like to make one other comment about the hon. Gentleman's speech. It must surely have been unique that he managed to speak to this House for 42 minutes on the importance of further funding for education without at any stage making one reference to the overall economic position that the country is facing.
  The hon. Gentleman tackles the issue as though in some way education can be looked upon in isolation from the means by which if is financed. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman said that the huge chasm which divided him from me resulted from the fact that I had stated that as a country we could spend on education only what we could afford. Now we know that, in the opinion of the hon. Gentleman, the ability of the country to pay for the educational service to be provided is apparently a matter of no regard.
  If the hon. Gentleman believes that it is for the benefit of those who are at school today to continue to provide services beyond those that we can afford, I can only tell him that we shall be creating greater economic problems for the future which will have to be faced by those who are at school today.
  The motion and the amendment rightly focus on the recent report of Her Majesty's Inspectorate. First, I want to deal with the issue concerning the publication of that report. It was referred to by the hon. Gentleman today, and it was also referred to at an earlier stage outside this House. It is, in fact, the fourth annual report that the inspectorate has made to the Secretary of State of the day, but it is the first of any such reports to have been published.
  The hon. Gentleman said in the course of his speech today that he would like to congratulate the inspectorate on its publication of the report. The inspectorate did not publish the report; I published it. I published it because I chose to publish it. I chose to publish it because I believed that it was right that Parliament and the public should have the opportunity of seeing what I accept as being an accurate picture, provided by the inspectorate, of the position which existed in the schools at the turn of the year.
  Mr. D. E. Thomas Mr. D. E. Thomas (Merioneth) rose—
  Mr. Carlisle: I did so also because I believed that the education service would find it helpful in the discharge of its responsibilities. That draft document—not the final document, which was published last week—was published on a Friday. What has happened? The publication, which

  443
  the hon. Gentleman claims today to welcome, was immediately attacked by him in the most intemperate language. He said that the timing of the publication was
  "a deliberate and excessive abuse of Government power".
  I published on a Friday. Why did I publish on a Friday? It was because, as the hon. Gentleman knows, I had given an undertaking to the House of Commons Select Committee that I would provide it with a draft on the same day as the draft was going to local government for its comments. The timing of the date of publication of the draft document to the local authorities depended on the date of the meeting, which had been fixed many months in advance to be on a Friday. So it was on a Friday that I not only gave the document to the local authorities but published it also to the House of Commons Select Committee and published it as a whole.
  The report, as I intended, received full press coverage. The hon. Gentleman's allegation that it was in some way slipped out in the middle of the night is just another of those little fantasies with which he is wont to mislead this House and the country.
  Mr. Christopher Price: I accept absolutely the Minister's account of the timing of the publication, but is he really saying that his decision to publish the report for the first time ever had absolutely nothing to do with the Select Committee having sent for it some time ago under its powers to send for persons and papers'? Does the Minister regard Select Committees in that offhand way?
  Mr. Carlisle: I said in answer to a question in this House—I cannot remember the date—that I still had not got the report, and that when I received it I would consider its publication. When I went before the Select Committee I confirmed that I would allow it to see a copy. The fact is that we do not know what is in the previous reports because the Secretary of State for Education and Science in the last Government chose not to publish them.
  I come now to the report. The hon Gentleman has described it as an alarming report. He is quoted as saying:
  "It shows evidence of the malice and criminal complacency of the Tories and their education Ministers".
  The hon. Gentleman claims that the law is being extensively broken. He did the same today. That, I suggest, is in total contrast to the tenor of the inspectorate's report.
  I have had words put into my mouth by the hon Gentleman at various times during his speech that I am not aware of having made. I have stated, on many occasions, that reductions in expenditure are bound to have some impact on education provision and on the numbers employed in the education service. The fact is that we, as a Government, believe that it is necessary, in the public interest, to reduce the level of public expenditure. Education, as a major part of that public expenditure, cannot, regrettably, be excluded. I cannot look at education in isolation from what is happening in the country as a whole. We cannot spend money that we have not got.
  Mr. Dan Jones Mr. Dan Jones rose—
  Mr. Carlisle: I would prefer not to give way, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind. I turn now to the facts. Of course, there are disturbing points made in the inspectorate's report. I accept that. That is why I published it. I would, however, point out to the House that in over 80 per cent. of the schools in the survey, staffing observed
  444
  was judged by the inspectorate to be satisfactory. In nearly 90 per cent. of the schools covered by the report, the provision of materials was judged to be generally satisfactory. In about 70 per cent., the supply of books was judged to be satisfactory. The report rightly then goes into details about the minority of schools where provision was not observed to be satisfactory. That is what one would expect. That detail is a small part of the overall present picture. It does not detract from that overall picture. The whole picture, I suggest, is certainly not the one painted by the hon. Gentleman or the one implied by the Opposition motion.
  The standard which our public education service has attained since the war has been one of the strengths of this country. It has been built up by the enthusiasm and commitment of those who work in it—teachers, staff, councillors and officials. The present inevitable constraint on resources will, I accept, certainly test that service. It will have some impact on provision, but to say, as the Opposition motion does, that the effect of these necessary savings is disastrous, is, I believe, a ludicrous exaggeration. It displays a deplorable lack of confidence in the education service's ability to cope. It raises false and unnecessary alarm in the minds of many parents who are rightly concerned about the standards of their children's education.
  What are the facts? Some 5½ per cent. of the gross national product of this country, or twice what it was in 1950, today goes on education. International comparisons, I accept, are notoriously uncertain because there are different circumstances in different countries. For what they are worth, the bare figures indicate that the proportion is as high in this country as in that of our major European Community neighbours and, indeed, rather higher than in either Germany or Italy. In 1979–80, the first year of this Conservative Government, we spent more on the schools in real terms than ever before—twice as much in total and half as much again per pupil as we were spending 20 years ago. Where has that extra money gone? Much has gone towards providing additional teachers and a reduction in the pupil-teacher ratio.
  The hon. Gentleman said that the report showed that the pupil-teacher ratio was worsening. In January 1980, the overall pupil-teacher ratio in England was 18·7 to 1. In primary schools, the ratio was 22·7 to 1, and in secondary schools, 16·6 to 1. All three ratios were the most favourable ever recorded.
  Mr. William Hamilton: Six months after you got in.
  Mr Carlisle: I hope, very soon to be able to produce the provisional overall pupil-teacher ratio for January 1981.
  Mr. Hamilton: Falling rolls.
  Mr. Carlisle: On the basis of returns so far received, I am confident that it will be at least as favourable as in 1980.
  Mr. Kinnock: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman is satisfied about that, will he refer to paragraph 16 which shows significant evidence of any change in the ratios obviously being for the worse? Will he deny that by 1983, he expects the number of teachers to fall by 12 per cent. when the most that can be expected from falling rolls is

  445
  a reduction of 13 per cent.? How much improvement in pupil-teacher ratios does he expect in those circumstances?
  Mr. Carlisle: I am coming to that. As the hon. Gentleman directs me to the report I should like to refer to paragraph 8 which states:
  "In most LEAs, pupil-teacher ratios remained little altered".
  It goes on to say that in nearly one-sixth, the ratios got somewhat worse and, in just over one-fifth, somewhat better. That does not fit in with the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that the report shows a worsening pupil-teacher ratio.
  Mr. D. E. Thomas: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman carry on with the rest of the paragraph and address himself to the issue that it raises relating to the differential between different areas and different schools? How will he cope with that in a situation of reduced expenditure?
  Mr. Carlisle: If I may make my speech, I will try to deal with these points. I am asked to look specifically at paragraph 16 which deals with those schools where the situation was not found to be satisfactory. I accept that there are some.
  Alongside this improvement in provision, there has also been a gradual improvement in standards. There is research evidence supporting the view that reading standards of 11-year-olds have improved progressively. Whereas, 16 years ago, in 1965, half of all school leavers had no graded examination results, only 13 per cent. today leave school without a result of some nature. Seven per cent. of school leavers from maintained schools have three A-level passes or more today. Fifteen years ago, the figure was only 5 per cent. This gradual improvement has raised our expectations. This is understandable and healthy. Just because we have had to revise earlier, unrealistic plans to take account of the reality of our economic situation, this does not mean that we are now about to lose all that has been achieved over those years.
  If one listens to Opposition Members, one might be excused for believing that the Government were planning to go back to a scale of provision which would have been typical in the 1950s. The facts are different. In the current year 1980–81, the second year of this Government, we plan to spend slightly more, in real terms, on children of statutory school age—I accept that that is excluding our cuts in meals and milk expenditure—than was spent in 1978–79, the last year of the Labour Administration, in both primary and secondary schools, even though there are 5 per cent. fewer pupils in our schools now than there were two years ago.
  The first year in which there were significantly fewer teachers in our schools was 1980. The inspectorate's report refers to some of the problems of adjustment that this entails. I recognise that not all local authorities will spend in accordance with our plans. Many authorities have chosen to continue to subsidise school meals to a greater extent than the Government had planned.
  Mr. William Hamilton: Quite right.
  Mr. Carlisle: They have done so because they could not in practice make the changes that we asked them to effect, or because they have felt it right to spend more on
  446
  meals and to make cuts elsewhere in education expenditure. Having allowed for the fact that our plans for savings were not put into effect totally, spending on schools, which has doubled since 1960, is likely for the current year 1980–81 to be at the very most about 1 per cent. below the level of 1978–79 although there are 5 per cent. fewer children in schools.
  What of the future? The Government have to reduce the unrealistic expenditure plans of the Labour Government. The extra money that has been found over the years has been obtained at a price, namely, an increase in the total real resources going generally into the public sector. That increase could be justified only so long as the national economy could afford it. Without some limitation in public expenditure on education and other services there cannot be growth in the private sector, a growth that will benefit us all. Therefore, we have made reductions in the proposals.
  I announced in December our revised plans for expenditure in 1981–82. On primary and secondary school expenditure we are planning a 3½ per cent. reduction as against that which was spent in 1978–79. However, pupil numbers will have fallen by 7½ per cent. over that period. We are allowing, both in the current year and in the coming year, for a higher cost per pupil than was provided for by the Labour Government in their last year of office.
  The Government's plans for the years beyond 1981–82 will be published next week. However, we are planning to maintain the position that I have described in later years as well. There will be relatively more older pupils and a reduction in average pupil numbers in our schools and I accept that there will have to be some tightening of the proposals for staffing standards. However, I have no doubt that staffing ratios throughout the Government's lifetime will still be better than the average of the past five years. The effect that those ratios will have on education standards will depend on the extent to which all our partners in the education service, especially the local authorities and the teachers, can work together to get the best value for money out of the resources that the nation can afford.
  The motion suggests that the problems of the education service arise only from the restraint on resources for which we now have to plan. Anyone listening to the hon. Member for Bedwellty would be forgiven for thinking that the Opposition are contending that the problems of the education service have arisen since May 1979. If Labour Members are honest, they will accept that many of the problems that we now face have their roots much further back in the past.
  I begin with staffing. The report refers to staffing not being judged or observed to be satisfactory. According to the report, that does not mean, as the hon. Gentleman seems to have implied and as many others have suggested, that numbers in that area were clearly inadequate.
  It is far more complicated than that. One of the difficulties referred to—it appears in the report as an area of unsatisfactory teaching being observed—was the shortage of teachers in certain subjects. In many of those subjects there have been long-standing national shortages—for example mathematics, physics, chemistry and craft design and technology. Until 1980 there were several years of continuing decline in the supply of newly qualified teachers in those subjects. I am glad to be able to say that there has been a sharp reversal of that trend.

  447
  In autumn 1980 enrolments in postgraduate certificate of education courses in mathematics, physics and chemistry were 45 per cent. up on the autumn 1979 figures. These students will be available for employment as newly qualified teachers this summer. All the signs from the applications received so far are that the 1981 enrolment will at least maintain that level. I remind the hon. Gentleman that a Government-sponsored pilot scheme for national scholarships for high calibre students to enable them to take postgraduate certificate of education courses in mathematics, physics and chemistry will begin in the autumn of 1982.
  The supply of teachers in craft design and techonogly has benefited from the recruitment of mature entrants and the retraining of serving teachers. The numbers training to teach craft design and technology within the training and retraining scheme in the current academic year are 30 per cent. up on the previous year.
  Mr. Dan Jones: Why is it that the Secretary of State is so satisfied with his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock), when the professionals with responsibility for education are completely dissatisfied?
  Mr. Carlisle: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. I am not saying that I am satisfied. I have said that I propose to answer the wild allegations and statements that have been made about the report by the Opposition. I propose to put the report, which I accept, in perspective and to try to identify the causes of the difficulties that the inspectorate found and to explain what we are attempting to do to overcome them.
  Recruitment to bachelor of education courses in certain subjects is below the planned level. That is not the result of expenditure restrictions. The places are available. The difficulty has been in finding students wishing to come forward to fill them. The early signs are that there will be an improvement in B.Ed. recruitment to most of the shortage subjects in the autumn.
  Mr. Kinnock: They are afraid that they will not get jobs.
  Mr. Carlisle: I am interested that the hon. Gentleman has made that sedentary remark. I shall leave my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State to deal with it when he replies. I think that last year there was a lower level of unemployment among newly qualified teachers than there had been in any of the previous two or three years.
  The report notes that teacher shortages appear in other areas of the curriculum, especially in subjects taken by a small number of pupils in minority subjects. This is a cause of concern. We are concerned that minority subjects should be dropping out of the curriculum. There should be as wide and varied a choice as possible within the curriculum. The problem is not one of money alone and it is not a new problem. Provision for minority subjects is bound to be affected by sharply declining pupil numbers. It is for local education authorities to offer a reasonable breadth of choice within each school and to make provision within their areas for the minority subjects for which there is significant demand, taking into account facilities in further education as well as within the schools. I am not pretending that that will be easy. However, I believe that authorities can achieve that objective within planned levels of expenditure. As the report explains, the
  448
  picture for the schools shows not only the effects of local authority expenditure policies, but the effects of falling pupil numbers.
  I remind the House that in paragraph 6 the report says:
  "In respect of the schools, which give HMI most cause for concern, two things must be stressed."
  What is the first? We have not heard very much about this. The first is that
  "it is not possible to disentangle in the returns the results of financial policies and inflation from the effects of falling rolls."
  Whatever the expenditure position, local authorities need to cope with the educational problems caused by schools shrinking beyond a certain level. Where this happens, the best way to maintain educational standards and opportunities may be to amalgamate schools. We all have to face the fact, however, that there is often much local opposition to any proposal for any school closures even though they are often designed to improve the educational opportunities of the children concerned.
  As the hon. Gentleman rightly said, the report refers to more mixed age teaching, particularly in the primary schools, Of course there is. But there are many more small primary schools that have not yet been amalgamated or closed and where the local inhabitants invariably oppose any attempt to rationalise.
  Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bovtman: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Carlisle: I am grateful for my Friend's support. For a moment, I thought that she was about to object.
  It is a combination of those factors which has led to some of the problems that the inspectorate found.
  Mr. Phillip Whitehead: The Secretary of State has been very eloquent about the various minorities which may still, perhaps, be treated by school amalgamation. He has said nothing about the reference in paragraph 46 of the report to the position of children with learning difficulties and that of gifted children. The report is particularly critical in relation to those two minorities.
  Mr. Carlisle: The hon. Gentleman will accept that I cannot deal with everthing. I agree that remedial education and the education of gifted children are areas of concern. One of the reasons for publishing the report was to allow the education authorities to see where the areas of difficulty occurred.
  I make one further point to the Opposition. I believe that it is worth making, even though some will say that it is controversial. Other legacies from the past are also adding to the difficulties of the education service in coping with the inevitable restraint on resources at a time of falling numbers. I believe that if the forced move towards comprehensive schools had been carried out in less of a rush and had been better planned there would have been fewer small comprehensive schools and fewer problems in the curriculum of many secondary schools today.
  The hon. Gentleman rightly made great play with the subject of books. I am naturally concerned about the report's findings with regard to schools in which there is a shortage of books. But past practices have not helped the shortages of books which are observed in 30 per cent. of the schools. It may come as a surprise to the hon. Gentleman, after all the speeches that he has made on the subject, to know that the amount spent on books per pupil in secondary schools consistently fell in every year of the lifetime of the Labour Government. By 1978–79, the Labour Government's last year in office, the amount spent on books was 33 per cent. less than it was in 1972–73.

  449
  I accept that until recently it has tended to be deliberate policy in schools to rely less on textbooks than in the past and to spend more on other forms of equipment. That fashion is now seen to have been overdone. For whatever reason, some schools have a history of inadequate provision of books. There is nothing new about this. The HMI national survey based on inspections in 1975 and 1978 showed shortages even of what were described as standard texts, especially in mathematics and science. It takes time to correct the situation, particularly now that resources are tighter and book costs have been hit by inflation. It is a priority area for the Government, and in our public expenditure plans we have provided for a slight increase of 2 per cent. per year in the resources available.
  I believe that the Opposition motion deliberately misrepresents the message of the HMI report. It also introduces a fallacy into the argument. It is simply not true that there is a direct relationship at all levels between education standards and resources. That point may be clearly inferred from the recent HMI report on ILEA. Of course there is some relationship between what is spent on the education service and how it performs, but a great deal depends on the skill with which authorities and schools plan and organise the service. Important though good management of resources is, there are also other factors which determine the quality of education, and on these the Government have acted.
  First, there is the school curriculum. With my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, I shall shortly be issuing a statement containing broad guidance on the curriculum to local authorities and schools.
  Secondly, examinations have a vital part to play in contributing to standards. The Government have resolved long-standing uncertainties and set a new course for examinations at 16-plus, 17-plus and 18-plus.
  Thirdly, we are reviewing the role of the Schools Council. With the agreement of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, following consultation with the local authorities associations, I have invited Mrs. Nancy Trenaman, principal of St. Anne's College Oxford, to review the council's functions, constitution and methods of work and to make recommendations. As it seemed wrong to make a change of chairman during the course of the review, I have invited the present chairman, Mr. John Tomlinson, to serve for a further period beyond April when his term of appointment would normally end. He has agreed to serve until the end of this year when he has made it clear that other duties will compel his resignation from the council.
  Parents also have a major part to play in strengthening the education system and in helping to make it serve the country better. The Government are giving parents more choice in the selection of schools and enabling them to play a more important role in the management of schools. Despite all that the hon. Gentleman has said, I welcome the help that so many schools are receiving from their parent-teacher associations, whether it takes the form of money or some other kind of help. Of course, parental contributions are no substitute for provision that it is the duty of the local education authority to make, but they can be a valuable supplement. While I accept that some schools will do much better than others out of parental contributions, the remedy is not to denigrate and to discourage contributions.
  Mr. Michael Spicer: On the question of parental contributions, and particularly with reference to the court case brought by a constitutent of mine last week, will my right hon. and learned Friend react to the fact that many parents in my constituency are now incensed and very anxious that the effect of that decision will be to deprive many of their children of additional music education? So concerned are they that some of them are apparently handing back the refunds given to them. Despite what has been said by the hon. Gentleman, will my right hon. and learned Friend therefore give serious consideration to amending the legislation?
  Mr. Carlisle: I have to say to my hon. Friend that I too fear very much that the result of that case may be a reduction in the opportunities for individual musical training. Clearly, Hereford and Worcester must obey the law, and the law says that one cannot charge in the circumstances in which provision was being made in that instance. In many parts of the country, education authorities—more than 40 per cent. of them, I believe—make some form of charge for individual instrumental tuition. There is nothing new about this at all. Like my hon. Friend, I fear that one result of that case may be that less individual instrumental tuition will be provided, although the judge made it perfectly clear that it was discretionary so far as the local authority was concerned.
  There has been much loose talk by the hon. Member for Bedwelty about local education authorities breaking the law. The report does not claim that individual local education authorities are in breach of their statutory duties, nor have they been forced into breaking the law. A less than satisfactory performance in some institutions within the whole of a local education authority's area does not amount to a breach of that authority's statutory duty. The report is an analysis of what the inspectorate has observed. Some of its observations relate to individual departments of an institution rather than to the institution as a whole. I stand ready to exercise powers available to me under the Education Acts if I am satisfied that an authority is in default of a relevant statutory duty.
  The report records the strong impression gained by the inspectorate during its visits. It notes that there is evidence that teachers' morale has been adversely affected. That must be taken seriously. But in the current position the duty of responsible people is to act responsibly. To paint the picture blacker than it is is thoroughly irresponsible. To pretend that everything could be put right by spending more money is worse than irresponsible—it is mischievous. We cannot spend on our public services money that we have not earned and do not have. Expenditure of resources that we do not have is not made possible by giving that expenditure the label of"investment".
  The Opposition are calling today for higher taxes and higher rates. They do so at a time of general recession. They ask that individuals, industry and commerce should find yet more money and should be left with fewer incentives and resources to invest in the wealth-producing process, and with less money to create jobs in the private sector, whose performance in the end determines how much money we can spend on education.
  I see a great deal more of schools than do Opposition Members. Of course the service is going through a difficult period, but it is absurd to claim, as the hon. Gentleman did

  451
  this afternoon, that it faces ruin. The Opposition's claim displays a lack of confidence in the men and women who work in education. I believe that most of them would resent that. They may feel that the Opposition are using their difficulties for purposes which have little to do with the needs of education. I ask the House to throw out the motion.
  5.42 pm
  Mr. Martin Flannery: The Secretary of State had the bland effrontery to refer to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) as one of raucous indignation. I can only describe the right hon. and learned Gentleman's speech as one—to coin a phrase—of raucous complacency. It is clear from the attitude of Conservative Back Benchers—especially the rumbling from one of them—that in the amendment the Secretary of State embodies the policy of the Conservative Party with terrifying accuracy. It is fascinating to read the amendment, which states:
  "this House notes the report by Her Majesty's Inspectorate".
  The amendment then makes it quite clear that, the House having noted the report, the Government will take not the slightest notice of it.
  The Government's attitude to the teachers is quite appalling. I say that as a former head teacher who knows exactly what teachers are thinking about what is happening to the education service in the hands of the Tory Government. The amendment continues:
  "and whilst recognising the need to restrain public expenditure expresses confidence in the ability of the education service in England, through the co-operation of all its partners, to secure maximum educational value from the extensive resources which continue to be available to it."
  It is time that the Secretary of State took note of the opinion of NUPE, which represents 300,000 ancillary workers in the education service. More than 30,000 NUPE jobs have been lost, and it is expected that another 100,000, especially in the meals service, will be lost. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman think that NUPE will praise what is happening in the education service? Does he think that the teachers, whom he praises to the skies, will applaud the cuts in education, especially the 10,000 jobs that have been lost? Many more teachers fear that they will lose their jobs. Our motion calls upon the Government to undertake"positive action". The expression"positive action" does not come from nowhere. Paragraph 50 of the report states:
  "What now look like limited anxieties could become major problems, unless positive action to counter them can be built into policies."
  The inspectorate—whose report is noted but of which no notice will be taken—points out that something is drastically wrong.
  The whole of the education world is seething with the report. Of course the Minister published it. It is such a damning indictment of Government policy that, if it had not been published at the behest of the Select Committee, it would have been leaked in the way that other reports have been leaked, and eventually the Minister would have been forced to publish it. The teachers would have demanded that he make public the opinions being voiced throughout the corridors of power and outside.
  There were 10,000 fewer teachers in the schools in November 1980 than there were in November 1979. The report states:
  452
  "There are indications that many LEAs have reached the position where they cannot reduce the level of supply cover further without causing a breakdown in schools' programmes when staff are absent owing to illness or released for in-service training."
  It continues:
  "there was evidence of teachers teaching subjects (not only those in which there are national shortages) for which they were: inadequately qualified or not qualified at all …
  In the primary schools there was evidence of increasing pressure on heads to undertake heavy teaching responsibilities."
  Most heads who teach are not able to do that, as they have schools to run. The report continues:
  "Adverse effects on the curriculum were noted where the range of specialist knowledge and skills had been reduced as teachers left or were deployed."
  We know that the position in secondary schools is little short of desperate. The number of part-time teachers is being reduced. The children's education is suffering. There is no replacement of remedial teachers. Yet we all know that the children who are slow learners and late developers urgently need remedial teachers. Anybody who has taught—and one or two Conservative Members have done so—knows that in both secondary and primary schools remedial classes are absolutely vital. Yet the non-replacement of remedial and part-time teachers is part and parcel of the education system since the Conservative Government took office. Let us make no mistake about it—that has been the policy since the Government took office. People can check on that if they so wish.
  It makes me tired to listen to Ministers and Conservative Back Benchers using the pupil-teacher ratios—good ratios which the Opposition established—and boasting about them as though they had established them when, in fact, they are damaging them. When we quote pupil-teacher ratios it must be made clear that they do not refer simply to teachers facing classes. Heads are counted and teachers doing administrative work—and there are many—and teachers who teach for only a few periods, are included. The teachers who fact; classes all day are angry and indignant about the ratios given by Governments of both major parties, because they have to face 20, 30 and, in some cases, 40 pupils in a class. Even that number is rising. That is the reality.
  Mr. Christopher Murphy: Am I not right in thinking that this is an Opposition Supply day? Is it not true that there are no Labour Back Benchers, barring one, present in the Chamber?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): That is not a matter for the Chair.
  Mr. Flannery: There are areas now with great social problems and which are being subjected to rigid staffing ratios, in a way in which in the past we did our utmost to avoid.
  There are cuts in every sphere of education—in books, paper and materials. The Minister talks as if we should pose the question of books against that of materials. It is true that some time ago, when schools needed major equipment which cost a great deal of money, many secondary schools had to cut down on books, but they did not deliberately pose books against equipment. They cannot pose the two against each other now, because books and equipment are going down side by side because capitation allowances are going down.
  The morale of the teaching profession is at an all-time low. I have spoken to the leaders of the NUT—as is my

  453
  wont—almost weekly. I have also spoken to the leaders of the other unions. They all admit that the morale of the teaching profession is at its lowest ebb for many years. Teachers are struggling under adverse circumstances of every kind to keep the education system going. However, that cannot go on for ever, no matter how they do their best, because they are frightened for their jobs, as are other working people. They fear more dreadful cuts in education.
  All those matters are talked about in the staff rooms. Teachers fear that educational ancillaries, more of whom are needed urgently, are instead steadily disappearing in front of their eyes. They know those people and have worked side by side with them. Ancillaries have helped throughout the school, in the kitchens and so on. As those ancillaries are leaving, education is suffering.
  Teachers fear for their pupils' safety at lunch time. Hitherto, pupils had meals at school—in the school precincts, yards and on the grass verges—but now they are out in the towns because they are not able to have school meals because of the price.
  Teachers fear for the limitations of the nutritional standard of pupils. All teachers know that when pupils are well fed it is easier to teach them, especially in the lower echelons of teaching, in the primary and nursery schools. Teachers fear increasingly large classes and more inroads on the equipment which they need to use for teaching.
  Mr. John Carlisle Mr. John Carlisle rose—
  Mr. Flannery: If the hon. Member interrupts all the time, other hon. Members will not be able to speak.
  I turn now to charging for swimming lessons and instrumental tuition. In my constituency, swimming lessons were free all through the 1920s when I was a small boy. Throughout the 1930s, they were free in most of the major cities, whatever was happening in the shires. It is new in most of the cities that anyone thinks of charging for swimming lessons. Musical tuition is free in our city and in most cities. As an experienced teacher I know that the musical life in any school is a vital part of the school. It is not a frill. The children of Conservative Members who are in private education will have access to that.
  Mr. John Carlisle: That is not true.
  Mr. Flannery: No one will cut down on that access as Conservative Members have plenty of money to pay for it. However, our children need that. The outcry of Conservative Members show that it hits home when I say it.
  There is now a reduction in the number of peripatetic teachers. All teachers of music, and other teachers who are involved in the cultural life of the school, are fearful for their jobs and for their charges. They have produced the great concerts we attend at Christmas and at other times. All those activities will steadily disappear if Conservative Members have their way.
  It is almost breathtaking how Tory Members dare to carry on in such a way when they pledged that the quality of education would be maintained and improved. Is there the slightest evidence in the report to which I referred that the quality of education is being maintained and improved? [Interruption.] Conservative Members may laugh, but they know as well as we do that the quality of
  454
  education is now dropping. The report shows that, no matter what they say. Ordinary children are being ruthlessly attacked.
  Is it to be expected, when unemploynent is heading towards the 3 million mark, that in working-class areas ordinary people will be making further parental contributions as well as paying their rates and paying for the education of their children? Do the Government think that unemployed workers can give more money on top of the rates, rents, lack of housing and so on which are being induced by the Government? Do the Government believe that those people will suddenly come out with a great deal of money to help education? Parental contributions will come from the well-off areas. In the working class areas where unemployment is almost endemic, our children will suffer. The hon. Member for Luton, West knows that.
  Mr. John Carlisle Mr. John Carlisle rose—
  Mr. Flannery: I wish the hon. Gentleman would stop interrupting and let me get on. He can make his speech later if he is capable of doing so.
  The report says:
  "The growing dependence of some primary schools on parental contributions, when added to the constraints on the numbers of teaching and non-teaching staff, seems likely to work to the disadvantage of those from families with low incomes and other problems and the less successful pupils."
  In other words, those who are deprived and disadvantaged as a result of the Government will be further deprived and disadvantaged. The inspectorate must be complimented on issuing such a courageous report. If the Secretary of State took the decision to print that report, I compliment him on that.
  The report shows that in-service training for teachers, which is urgently needed to keep up with modern teaching methods, and which all teachers want and need, is being cut so drastically that in many areas it may disappear altogether.
  Advisory services with poor coverage in maths, science, modern languages, and so on, are being cut to the bone. Every aspect of education which we have patiently built up over the years in order better to educate our children is being drastically cut. The per capita funding for each child has been cut in four-fifths of local education authorities. The figure of 17 per cent. was mentioned, but that is only one aspect. The report says that in half the LEAs there are too few books. Materials in two-thirds of the LEAs are unsatisfactory.
  The appalling neglect of the food for our children is evident to everybody. The Child Poverty Action Group says:
  "Norfolk are discussing the possibility of closing kitchens in primary schools. A decision to end school meals in primary schools in April 1981 has been taken in Gloucestershire subject to ratification by the Education Committee. No school meals are provided in Dorset for children in primary schools (except those who are entitled to free meals). A cafeteria system is in operation in secondary schools … According to a report in The Times … Lincolnshire are proposing to end the school meals service in primary schools from March and in secondary schools from the autumn."
  I could go on to give many more examples. As the price of school meals goes up, the number of children taking school meals—those who need them most—is steadily going down.
  No matter what Conservative Members say, that is the reality for teachers, who, unlike them, have to stand in front of classes and teach children—not in private schools,

  455
  but in the public sector. In 1979, 29 per cent. of primary classes and 12 per cent. of secondary classes had over 30 pupils, yet 12 per cent. of teachers have since left. Those numbers will now steadily climb. Even though rolls are falling, teachers will have more pupils in their classes.
  There has been a ruthless attack on nursery education. The education of our young children in those vital years between 3 and 5 will go in many areas. Children will not begin to be educated until they are 5. The school meals service and the nursery service are being steadily dismantled by the Government.
  What about the private sector? Amidst the gloom and doom about the public sector, induced by the Conservative Party, the private sector is booming. The sector to which the kids of Conservative Members go is growing. They are taking money from our children and food out of their mouths. They will shortly be taking £55 million of our money—taxpayers' money—in order to strengthen the private sector. When they are told that, they immediately begin to fight back. It is a classic example of Tory thinking.
  Let me give an example of what it means. A two-child family with an income of £3,800 per annum will no longer be entitled to free school meals. A one-child family, whose child takes the exam for a private school under the so-called assisted places scheme—it should be called a filched places scheme—and whose annual income is twice that, will be entitled to £500 of taxpayers' money in order to send the child to that school. It is utterly disgraceful.
  The Tory Party is engaged in creaming off some of the ablest pupils from comprehensive schools, which it loathes and hates because of the democratisation that we started in education. Even though 85 per cent. of our children go to comprehensive schools, the Government are determined not only to take money from us and our children, but also to cream off many of our ablest pupils for their schools. At the same time they state that the quality of education will be maintained and improved. It will—in the private sector to the detriment of the public sector, where they are trying to ensure that the standard of education decreases.
  What a squalid, selfish education scheme our children and teachers are having to contend with. As the Minister says, the teachers will try to make it work. They will steadily begin to fight back. It is unbelievable that this dreadful Government still blandly pretend that they are helping our children. They are helping their children at the expense of ours. I do not know how they dare to go round to schools and to look our children in the eye. They will never change. The only thing that the electors in Britain can do is to change them.
  6.1 pm
  Mr. Robert Rhodes James: I am glad to have the opportunity to follow the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery). One of the few things to be said for politics is that it brings into the House of Commons people like him and takes them away from the school rooms, where they can have an influence over children.
  Apart from anything else, as the House knows, the hon. Gentleman is a little casual with his facts. He said that the assisted places scheme was costing £55 million. In fact, it is £3 million, out of a budget of over £8 billion. That is just one of those facts that the hon. Gentleman somehow got wrong.
  456
  I regard education as too vital a subject to be reduced, as the hon. Gentleman did, to part of the political bag and baggage of public debate. I briefly wish to make certain non-political points. They are based on my deep concerns. All Governments and all political parties have made considerable achievements and suffered considerable failures. They have all made errors over education. One could easily attack the record of the previous Government. One could also demonstrate clearly the record of the Conservative Party over State education. We have the 1902 Act, the 1944 Act and other contributions. I also willingly pay tribute to the creation of the Open University by a former Labour Government. All political parties, including the Liberal Party, have made considerable contributions and considerable errors.
  What is behind the motion, quite apart from the HMI report? What in short, is education? Why are we spending £8 billion a year on it? The reason why generalisations and politicians are so perilous in this area is that we are dealing with an extraordinary and unique relationship between a gifted and enthusiastic teacher and someone who wants to be taught. It can occur in the most unlikely circumstances and in the worst conditions. It often does not occur under the most lavish and expensive conditions. One cannot legislate for the relationship and the conditions.
  When one considers the amount that we have spent as; a nation on our education system over even the past 20 years and remembers that we have 3 million people classified as illiterate, a vast number who are innumerate and an enormous need for remedial teaching, one cannot reasonably claim that it is a success story or that we have achieved anything like what we should expect to achieve for the money involved. Any debate on education that concentrates entirely on money misses the whole purpose of improving and maintaining standards and the interrelationship of education. It is equally wrong to go to the other extreme and claim that standards can be improved by eliminating resources.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State and his colleagues have done magnificently since the formation of this Government. However, I wish to speak through them to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and to others to express my concern that we may well be getting to a point when the balance between resources and standards could be seriously affected. I do not say that it is yet affected. The HMI report does not give that confirmation. However, we are getting somewhere near the border. I am particularly concerned with further education and university education. Looking at the proposed reductions, I express to the Chancellor my concern that we may be getting very near the border.
  A valid criticism of every Government over the past 25 years is that we have not had a serious strategy for education since the 1944 Act. We have lived on that Act, yet circumstances have changed so much. We have had a piecemeal changing of the situation without trying to place each part of the section within an overall strategy. We are all to blame.
  In a recent debate on adult education, I mentioned the vital link between industry and commerce—the real world, as it were—and education. There is becoming a vital need for that gap significantly to be closed. For the first time in my experience, there is a real understanding within the education profession and in industry and commerce of how important that is. The day has long

  457
  passed when industry can simply complain about the results of the education system. It must involve itself far more in the system and feel responsible for it.
  Mr. Whitehead: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that involvement would be intensified, not least in this House and in politics, if hon. Members and others in the Conservative Party used the State system?
  Mr. Rhodes James: The hon. Gentleman has chosen the wrong person.
  Mr. Whitehead: I know the hon. Gentleman uses the State system.
  Mr. Rhodes James: So do others of my hon. Friends.
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: As do hon. Members on the Opposition Benches.
  Mr. Rhodes James: I do not make any point of it. However, I emphasise that everyone has the right to choose the education for their children that they wish. If people wish to use the independent sector, so be it. If they make sacrifices to do so, it is not my concern.
  The role of independent schools is not my concern and nor is it the concern of the House. We are concerned with the State system and with making it the finest free education system in the world. The link between education, higher education and industry represents one of the most hopeful opportunities of all. In spite of the irrelevant intervention of the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead), I emphasise that realisation is stronger than ever.
  However, I want to get away from the political aspect and come back to the point that I made at the beginning. We must look hard at what has happened over the past 20 years and recognise the mistakes and the achievements of all parties and all Governments. We must view the matter with realism. What is our purpose, and what is our policy? It is to improve standards and to create the finest State education in the world, bar none. That is our purpose, and that is our policy. When we get away from the politics of the matter, that is what the debate should be about.
  6.11 pm
  Mr. Christopher Price: I start with a small point, which I may have misunderstood. It appeared to me that the most unworthy of the allegations made by the Secretary of State was that in some way the present situation has something to do with comprehensive reorganisation. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman thinks about it, he will see that that statement cannot be true. He seemed to be saying that one result of comprehensive reorganisation is a proliferation of schools that did not exist before.
  The Government cannot have it both ways. The usual allegation against comprehensive schools is that they are too big, that they are monolithic and that they have been formed by an amalgamation of small schools into one big school. Now the right hon. and learned Gentleman seems to be saying the opposite. If comprehensive schools are too big and too monolithic, he cannot at the same time say that they are inefficient in terms of resources. I accept that there is a resource problem, but I do not think that he can blame comprehensive education for the sort of problems that Miss Browne, the senior chief inspector, exposed in the report.
  Mr. Mark Carlisle: I have criticised comprehensive schools in the past as being over-large. I was merely making the factual point that if rolls are falling and if there are smaller secondary schools of a comprehensive nature—which, by their very nature, are trying to cover a wider area of the curriculum—it is therefore more difficult not to have gaps at each end of the curriculum.
  Mr. Price: I do not believe that the right hon. and learned Gentleman can sustain that argument. If the 11-plus had not been abolished and if we still had secondary modern and grammer schools, we should have more schools and they would have been getting even smaller. The same problem of sustaining the curriculum, particularly in the 14 to 16 age range where choices begin to be made, would have been more acute, not less. I do not want to make too much of that problem, but I do not believe that the charge the Secretary of State made really stands up.
  I want to say a word about the origin of the report. Had it not been for the Select Committee, this report would not have seen the light of day. In a sense, that is a tribute to the Government, not to the Opposition, because the present Government set up the new system of Select Committees. There is no party divide on the Select Committee about the demand for information on the report. We sent for the report quite early on. I initiated the debate on 12 January about providing information to Select Committees. On that occasion the Government were clearly worried, because the entire payroll vote had its leave cancelled and hon. Members were wheeled in at half-past two on a Friday. The Government had to make one or two concessions. In that debate we heard the Pym pledge and the Carlisle concession. The Leader of the House promised that if there was substantial worry about lack of information we should have a debate, and the Secretary of State said that the Select Committee could have the report simultaneously with the local authorities.
  I do not wish to be churlish, because it is a good thing that the report has been published, but I very much hope, now that the Secretary of State has taken a deep breath and published it once, that he will continue to have courage and publish it next year and the year after. If I am still in this House and if a Government of a different colour come to power, as I fully expect, and seek not to publish the report, I pledge that I shall be foremost in trying to force a report out of them.
  Mr. Kinnock: Foremost after me.
  Mr. Price: We have the pledge of my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) that that is not a problem. I suspect that the Government deserve credit in this regard, but they cannot stop now.
  I wish to voice one worry: that of all the departments in the DES to be investigated by Sir Derek Rayner, the inspectorate has been chosen by the Secretary of State for investigation. Perhaps I am of a suspicious nature, so perhaps it will all come right in the end, but if there were an attempt, in the light of the report, to clip the wings of the inspectorate and erode its independence in any way, that would be seen not as a part of normal internal reorganisation, but as a reaction by Government to what was contained in the report. I put that on the record now, so that there shall be no diminution in the independence of the inspectorate.

  459
  When the Secretary of State appeared before the Select Committee he emphasised the independence of the inspectorate. The senior chief inspector was asked a number of questions recently in the Select Committee, and she emphasised her independence. She will come back to give us further information because she could not remember the names of certain local education authorities—a matter to which I shall come in a moment. As a result of the considerable courage of the senior chief inspector and her colleagues in collecting this information, I hope that it will not be said—not by the Secretary of State himself but by the"Yes Minister" bureaucrats below him—that this is a bad thing and something that should not happen again. I say that simply to put it on the record.
  The most worrying event, almost more worrying than the report, is the Forbes judgment in the Hereford and Worcestershire case. Clearly, we are reaching the point at which the standards laid down by law in the 1944 Education Act can hardly be sustained any longer by local education authorities. The particular case was brought by a teacher who is also a parent, but there are many parent groups throughout the country which are contemplating taking their local education authorities to law because they consider, rightly or wrongly, that the law is being breached.
  The Secretary of State has an important responsibility here. He cannot leave the matter to the local education authorities because section 1 of the 1944 Act is specific, not only about their responsibilities but about his responsibilities. His duty is:
  "to promote the education of the people of England and Wales and the progressive development of institutions devoted to that purpose, and to secure the effective execution by local authorities, under his control and direction, of the national policy for providing a varied and comprehensive education service in every area".
  The duty is laid on him by law to control and direct education authorities. He cannot allow Hereford and Worcestershire, and then perhaps other counties, to lose case after case and simply stand back.
  The Secretary of State said that he would make a statement on the curriculum. In a moment, I shall come to the legal status of that statement.
  Mr. Greenway: To be fair, I think that it should be said that parents have been paying for certain aspects of education provision for many years, going back to 1944. There is nothing new about it. What is new, perhaps, is the scale of it. The principle has been in operation for years, although it has always been against the law and a number of authorities would not allow it.
  Mr. Price: I have a great respect for the hon. Gentleman's experience of the education service. He was a deputy headmaster in my constituency for many years, as he knows. I am only sorry that Sedgehill school has lost him and that the electors of Ealing were so misguided as to deprive us of Bill Molloy and to send the hon. Gentleman to us.
  Of course, parents have been making contributions ever since 1944, but as far as I am aware—I may be wrong—this is the first time that the quality of education, as defined in the 1944 Act, has been litigated, certainly to any degree. The fact that it has been litigated is a phenomenon which is not irrelevant to this report. The standards provided and what people conceive as the duty of providing basic education under the Act are getting very close together. Inevitably, we shall have some more law cases.
  460
  The reason why I think that the Forbes judgment is particularly important—and why I was happy to see the Secretary of State nod a few minutes ago—is that if ever the idea got around that the 1944 Act applies only to reading, writing and arithmetic and that subjects such as music, art and crafts are somehow frills and fripperies, that would be a tragedy for education. Elementary education, before 1944, was defined by law as reading, writing and arithmetic. The whole change, the massive step forward, in 1944, was to get rid of that narrow definition of reading, writing and arithmetic and to move towards a very much wider, much more generous and much more civilised concept of education, which did not have just this narrow utilitarian view but tried to aim at educating our youngsters to something very much broader and more generous.
  That is why the Forbes judgment worries me particularly. I think that certain education administrators at local and national level may get it into their heads—and, perhaps, argue in court—that in some way the basic curriculum is reading, writing and arithmetic and that everything else is frills. When the Secretary of State makes his statement on the curriculum, I hope very much that he buries that idea very firmly. Unless schools comprehend the arts in all their forms, they are not worthy of being called schools.
  I want to concentrate on the business of the law, because that is what Parliament ought to be particularly concerned about at present. The Government's amendment worries me. It uses the words:
  "to secure maximum educational value from the extensive resources which continue to be available to it."
  Those are very fine words, but they are not what the law says. What the law says is the duty of education authorities is in section 8 of the 1944 Act. Talking about the standards of schools, section 8 says:
  "the schools available … shall not be deemed to be sufficient unless they are sufficient in number, character, and equipment to afford for all pupils opportunities for education offering such variety of instruction and training as may be desirable in view of their different ages, abilities, and aptitudes"—
  and the section continues by making references to the time that pupils might spend at school.
  Our predecessors, when they wrote those words into law in 1944, thought that they were protecting the standards in the schools. We must make sure that they do so, and stick to those words and not to the sort of new formulation which the Government put forward in the amendment today. The law has laid down the standards that ought to exist in schools, and it is the Secretary of State's precise duty, laid down in the law, to defend those standards and not to erode them.
  I know that it is a difficult job in present economic circumstances, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) said, there were difficult economic circumstances in Britain in 1929, 1930, 1931, and 1932. Some of us who are not old enough to remember that period can ask our fathers and grandfathers to tell us about circumstances then. In a whole range of areas in which parents are now expected to put their hands into their pockets and pay for various things, even in the worst years of the slump there was a determination—certainly in places such as Sheffield, but also in various places all over Britain—to defend standards and to make sure that those were publicly provided services and not services provided according to the pockets of the parents.

  461
  I should like to put the Secretary of State right on one point. Although he may not have said so, the implication appeared to come over, concerning the report, that the inspectorate had made it clear that there were no breaches of the law. The inspectorate did not say that. There were two statements by the inspectorate about what the law was. On the first occasion the hon. Member for Bedforshire, South (Mr. Madel), one of my colleagues on the Select Committee, asked Miss Browne:
  "Has there ever been a test case?"—
  to test standards.
  Miss Browne said:
  "Not to my knowledge."
  The report continued:
  "Mr. Madel: 'If ever there was a test case and the court found that the authority was failing, what would happen then?""
  Then, to protect Miss Browne, I marched in, saying:
  "I think these are proper questions to be put to the legal advisers of the Minister rather than to Miss Browne"—
  and asked the hon. Member for Bedfordshire to please desist from that particular line of questioning.
  Later on, however, I tried to sum up the matter by asking Miss Browne, as Select Committees are entitled to ask, not what advice she gave the Minister, but whether she had ever given any advice to the Minister that schools were breaking the law. This appears on page 21 of the transcript. I said:
  "Have you ever given advice of this kind to the Secretary of State that an authority might be breaking the law?"
  She said:
  "No; although individual full-inspection reports on institutions in certain circumstances could be tantamount to giving that advice."
  It is important to get exactly on the record Miss Browne's evidence about breaking the law. We should not get away with the idea that this report is conclusive about whether the law is being breached. It is not conclusive one way or the other.
  The Secretary of State will be making his statement on the curriculum at the end of this month. I do not think that that statement will have legal force, but he said that it would be a statement of guidance to local education authorities about the curriculum. Does he consider that it would be the sort of statement which could be of use in court so as to enable the courts to decide whether the law was being broken? It is the status of that document which will have very important legal force in the future.
  I hope that the Under-Secretary will respond to that point later. It is important, because the groups of parents who are thinking of going to law over this issue and local authorities which are thinking of defending themselves will want to know what they can adduce in court to prove the matter one way or the other.
  I move on to another issue of dispute which existed between the Select Committee and the senior chief inspector as a result of our questioning her on this report. There is nothing partisan in this matter. This report indicates, very honestly, that the inspectorate, partly on the objective evidence of money spent and partly on subjective evidence of professional judgments by the inspectorate, has put all local authorities in Britain into three divisions—the first division, the second division and the third division.
  It is true that the second division is bigger than the first division or the third division, but broadly they are three divisions.
  462
  The role of the inspectorate is changing. In the old days the inspectorate used to inspect only schools. It did not inspect local authorities. In the Select Committee we asked the senior chief inspector if she could give us the names of the local authorities in the different divisions. We did not want to be put in exact rank order with Aston Villa at the top and Halifax Town at the bottom; all we wanted was a broad statement of groups of authorities in the three divisions. The senior chief inspector referred to one Midlands authority. When she was asked which authority that was, she said she could not remember, and I take that completely.
  There was a broad bipartisan feeling that there should not be half-open government in regard to these reports. If the Government are going to go public on them, they must go very much more public than they have in this report. I know that there are problems of confidentiality with local education authorities, but with the county council elections coming up the Select Committee feels very strongly that the local education authorities in all three divisions should be identified. Parliament has power to send for persons so that they shall answer questions. The senior chief inspector has promised to answer this question. I know that the Secretary of State feels that it may cause difficulties between the inspectorate and local education authorities in future but my view is that those difficulties must be faced, the questions must be answered and we must know which authorities are in which divisions.
  Mr. Mark Carlisle: May I say to the hon. Gentleman that I did not include this in my speech because it was long enough? He must face the fact that, as I understand it, the inspectorate, in accordance with normal practice, made it clear when obtaining information from local education authorities and schools that if it was published it would not identify individual authorities or schools. Therefore what he is asking is, after an undertaking has been given to them that any evidence given would not be published, they should then break that confidence.
  Mr. Price: I know that is one difficulty, but Miss Browne said that authorities are told and that each chief education officer knows whether the authority is in division one, division two or division three. It is highly likely that in the next week or two some authorities are going to go public on this. One authority may say"We are in division one. Vote for us because we have done so well on education". Another authority may say"We are in division three. Look at this awful Conservative Government. They are not giving us enough money to run our schools". For whatever reasons, with the local elections coming up there will be pressure, and councillors have the right to find out which division their authority is in.
  I do not want to press this too hard but there is a real desire to know the identities of authorities according to division. Perhaps it would mean some consultation with the local authority associations. The Select Committee wants to know only the broad categories. It does not want an individual ranking list. Although I know all the difficulties, I think the Secretary of State will have to come to terms with this eventually.
  While I am on this, I hope the Secretary of State not only takes seriously this issue of the Select Committee but replies to our various reports more expeditiously in future.

  463
  We are still waiting for the final reply on the higher education report. Although there are problems, there is an obligation to reply. For what it is worth, the Procedure Committee laid down a time of two months. It is way beyond that now. The Secretary of State is involved with Cabinet committees and I know not what—we are not allowed to know these things. He has problems over his new quango for higher education, but the Select Committee deserves a reply soon, even if he has not got very much to tell us. He can reply more fully later. The Procedure Committee laid down rules and we should try to stick to them.
  I asked Miss Browne about the criticisms in the report. I gave a list, starting with the pressure on teachers, and asked her which one caused her the most worry. She had no doubt, and all the inspectors agreed, that if she was allowed to add to
  "the pressure on teachers" also"teaching subjects they were not qualified to teach" and"over-teaching by teachers,"
  that is, teaching 40 periods in a 40-period week—the pressure on teachers was
  "the most serious because, without teachers being in a position to do a properly professional job, it was not possible to have a good education."
  That is the criticism that the Secretary of State ought to be most worried about. It is not unprecedented in Britain to have a shortage of teachers or to have teachers teaching subjects that they should not be teaching. What is unprecedented is having that situation alongside a situation in which there are good teachers on the dole. Previously when there has been a shortage of teachers it has been in periods of economic boom when all the teachers of mathematics and science have been scooped up by industry. Then schools had to take anyone who came along. This is a different situation. There are good teachers who are not being employed. That is the worry here.
  The evidence we got from the mathematics inspector was particularly worrying. He gave all the figures which the Secretary of State has given about the encouraging number of new teachers coming along to train to teach mathematics. He said that the most worrying thing that could happen would be that the economy should take off, because then the teaching profession could not match the salaries which would be offered by industry and commerce for well-qualified mathematicians and scientists and immediately the schools would begin to be stripped of such teachers. I hope that the Secretary of State is thinking about that in relation to our report on higher education; because something needs to be done about it.
  To sum up, the standards laid down by the 1944 Education Act are beginning to be breached up and down the country. Therefore, the Secretary of State is in this dilemma: is he to put forward to the Cabinet the recommendation that the law should be changed to reduce the standards in the 1944 Act, or is he to try to get enough money to keep those standards up? I hope that he will follow his duty under section 1 of the Act and will not contemplate any legislation which would be the thin end of the wedge in making parents put their hands in their pockets. He should fight as hard as he can in Cabinet committees and in Cabinet so that he can get the resources to keep up the standards which our forefathers laid down for this service.
  6.39 pm
  Mr. Tim Brinton: I am glad that the tone of the debate has become slightly more moderate, and
  464
  considerate of the subject of education, rather than one based on party politics or anything like that. There was a consensus in the Select Committee about the HMI report. However, before I lose it in the rest of what I have to say, I must make it plain that I did not want the authorities named and I did not ask for that. Had a previous commitment been given to those local authorities, as it had in this case, it would have been quite wrong to break it. However, in the future I should be quite prepared to go along with any pressure which the Select Committee wished to produce in that direction.
  I start with the inspectors' report, from which we have heard many extracts. One fundamental point has not been stressed enough. As I understand it, this is the first such report to have been published. When the inspectors appeared before the Select Committee on 25 February, I asked the senior chief inspector, Miss Browne, how we could compare this report with what had happened in previous years. A baseline had been established by the inspectors which amounted to assessments of each local education authority. That was done by the inspectors in September 1980, and took account of the effectiveness of the education currently provided as well as the availability of appropriate resources.
  The substance of my question was to ask how that compared with previous years, and Miss Browne's answer was:
  "The pattern of variation across the country probably has not changed markedly".
  That is significant if one is seriously considering the position. Obviously, with such economies as have been made, things have changed in our schools, but I suspect that they have changed very little compared with previous years. I do not find it at all astonishing that Her Majesty's inspectors had cause for concern above the bottom 15 per cent. of this league table. I should be very surprised if they did not feel that at any given time.
  In addition, it was absolutely clear that in the inspectors' minds it was impossible to separate the element of trouble caused by falling rolls from those caused by any economies. There was little alteration to the pupil-teacher ratio. Much was made of the pupil-teacher ratio by the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock), but that point must be brought out. The inspectors said:
  "The overall picture is of a stricter application of teacher staffing formulae than in 1979".
  As a ratepayer and taxpayer, I say"Good". It was about time that a careful look was taken at that. A total of 500 out of 600 primary schools had their staffing assessed as satisfactory, and 290 out of 360 secondary schools were also assessed as satisfactory. I do not find that a bad record.
  As has already been said, there was evidence that teachers were teaching subjects for which they were not qualified. That has happened for years. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) referred to the primary school evidence of increasing pressure on heads to undertake heavy teaching responsibilities. As a member of a local education authority, one thing I look for is heads of primary schools getting in and teaching. It is the only way in which they can run their schools. I am delighted about that change.
  Mr. Flannery: What about heavy teaching?
  Mr. Brinton:"Heavy" is a relative word. What is heavy in Hillsborough may not be heavy in Kent.

  465
  I turn to the subject of parental contributions. It is possibly astonishing to the hon. Member for Hillsborough, but the primary schools in my constituency are the ones in which the parents want to contribute more. Often they contribute more than parents in the richer areas. It is evil to suggest that parents should not be able directly to contribute to their children's education. That is a positive help to them and their children. Incidentally, it also makes them more interested in what is happening in schools.
  I read the report rather differently from the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price). It is an echo of what has probably been written by the inspectors for many years. I should like to see standards and qualities improved. However, I do not believe that the way to improvement is only through extra funding and investment. These days the scream from teachers is always"resources", but machinery is not the way to educate.
  If I were to spend a few minutes talking about education, I would want to talk about teaching children how to behave. I would not want to talk excessively about the huge area of social work which has entered our schools. Teachers frequently admit to me that a large portion of their time is taken up by looking after the children, and sometimes the parents, instead of being able to teach. Obviously every teacher needs close personal contact, but the social work aspect has grown out of all proportion, particularly at primary level, over the last 10 or 15 years.
  Of course books are needed. There has been little mention of the fact that the allocation of the books, stationery and apparatus allowance is in the hands of the head of the school. He gets the gross amount and decides how to spend it. I am proud to say that in Kent, in 1981-82, the BSA allowance will be improved in cash terms by 60 per cent. over current levels, which will keep Kent in the top quarter of all authorities. A local authority does not have to spend less on BSA. Once the money goes to the head, it is he who can allocate it. Some heads prefer to buy apparatus instead of books, others prefer to buy books. It is their choice, just as it is their choice as to how they allocate their staff.
  One of the most effective schools that I have ever known was a small independent primary school in North London, which would have received one of the most damning reports that the HMIs had ever written had they bothered to write a report about it. The furniture was minimal, the classes were big, the building was under-provided for and the fees were not that difficult to pay. There was a dedicated staff. The children enjoyed themselves and behaved. They got lunch, and they learnt.
  I may be accused of being a bit of a blimp and of going back to the old-time three Rs. Surely the three Rs should be the priority. By all means let us expand on that. However, at present so much time and money are being spent on the expansion side that we are losing the three Rs in the middle. In that sense, I welcome the economies that have been thrust on the education world. Of course they are hard to live with. In terms of gross national product, we are spending twice as much on education as was spent in 1950. Are our results twice as good? Are we twice as well educated? I strongly doubt it. Money is not the answer. The answer is dedicated teaching and applying priorities in the right place.
  6.52 pm
  Mr. A. J. Beith: I think that this is the first opportunity, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that a Liberal has had of congratulating you upon occupying the Chair. We are delighted to welcome a North-Easterner and a Methodist to the Chair. It is a great pleasure for us, but I know how much you wish you were taking part in this debate rather than presiding over it.
  The debate has become more constructive as it has gone along, and, even though I disagree with the views just expressed by the hon. Member for Gravesend (Mr. Brinton), I acknowledge that he did at least attempt to set out the case as he saw it for minimal cost education. We have moved in a rather welcome way from party exchanges to a serious discussion of the report of Her Majesty's Inspectorate.
  I do not believe that teachers and parents are interested in who thinks who has exaggerated most about this document. Indeed, when the Secretary of State sought to attack as hyperbole some of the things said from the Opposition Front Bench, I thought that what he was quoting sounded remarkably like the things I heard said from the Opposition Benches when they were occupied by the Conservatives during the time of the previous Government, and there was plenty of hyperbole then. That is not what people are interested in. The people want to know how the Government are going to respond to the concerns and worries expressed in the report by the inspectors of education. I do not seek to exaggerate it, and I hope I shall not quote it out of context, but it is quite apparent that it is a worrying and disturbing report. The inspectors state quite clearly that what they now see as concerns could become major worries if action is not taken in policy to counteract them.
  Therefore, we are interested in finding out how the Government propose to respond to those concerns, and it is really of little consequence whether they are concerns that have arisen over several years or whether a large part of them is the result of what has happened over the last 18 months. That is not of much concern to parents; their concern is what the Government are going to do about what the inspectors see as wrong in a very significant minority of schools. There are things which the inspectors think are likely to happen in many other schools if positive action is not taken. The Government's amendment does not seem a very good starting point for finding a positive response to what the inspectors have found. The amendment really says to the education service"We are sure you can cope with the resources you have now, or possibly with even less."
  Let me start with some of the things the inspectors say about basic standards and the curriculum. They say, for example, in paragraph 13 of the report that in about 15 per cent. of secondary schools there was evidence of teachers teaching subjects for which they were inadequately qualified or not qualified at all. They speak of adverse effects on the curriculum where the range of specialist knowledge and skills had been reduced as teachers left or were redeployed and of many returns indicating a reduced or non-existent specialist cover for minority subjects such as the classics, Russian, Italian or geology. It happens that in that list are a couple of subjects of very considerable importance, although they will probably always be

  467
  minority subjects—Russian and geology, both of which have very considerable implications for the future of this country.
  I have picked out just a number of instances in which the inspectors pointed to important problems that were already arising in an important minority of schools.
  On top of that, of course, there is the whole issue that was raised and discussed by the Chairman of the Select Committee on Education, the problem of charging for subjects and the effect that that will have on some minority subjects such as music. I hope that in the course of the winding up of the debate tonight the Under-Secretary will give us some indication of how the Government's thinking is going on this very crucial problem. I agree that this is not a new problem. The legal decision has cast doubt on what has been a widespread practice in many schools over a long period. This has caused a very serious problem now because music tuition in schools is of immense cultural value. It has brought the nation to a position in which it has better orchestras, brass bands and instrument playing than many other countries and it has brought a very rewarding activity to many young people. It would be a tragedy if that very large minority activity were to be destroyed.
  So in the areas to which the inspectors have pointed and in those highlighted by the court case there are some very serious problems to which the Government must make a positive response.
  Then, on books, equipment and the question of parental contributions the inspectors had some very worrying things to say about what was happening. According to paragraph 29,
  "District inspectors reported satisfactory provision of books in just over half the LEAs."
  In other words, in slightly under half of the local education authorities there was evidence of unsatisfactory provision.
  There was also evidence of an increase in the extent to which parental funding was being used for the purchase of books. I agree with those who have said that the activities of parent-teacher associations in supporting schools and, indeed, in raising money for them are very desirable, and close parental and community involvement in the schools is an excellent thing, but I must protest at the implication that the basic essentials for the school can or ought to be provided by parental subscription. The problems that will result if we accept that proposition are very serious.
  I quote one example of what seems to be happening at the moment, and the Secretary of State had better listen to it because it comes from his Chief Whip's constituency. It is the Lakes comprehensive school in South Lakeland, where the parents are extremely worried about what is happening and the co-ordinator of an action group of parents says:
  "Due to the ravages of inflation the effectiveness of the allowance"—
  that is, the allowance for books and equipment—
  "has now dwindled to an appallingly low level."
  His group has
  "prepared a schedule of ventures which it was hoped would raise sufficient funds for all children to have their own textbooks, to be able to paint in art lessons, to have test tubes and chemicals for science experiments."
  These are the basics of the school.
  "He added that a letter was going out to each parent requesting their support in making a contribution to the funds of the LSA"—
  that is, the Lakes School Association—
  "of £5 per pupil per term"—
  468
  that is, £15 a year per child in order to maintain the basic essentials for the school—
  "even though with full parental support the group would still be short of the £20,000 initial target to replenish vital school equipment."
  I believe that if we go too far down that road parents, and particularly parents of poor families, if parental choice is offered to them, will say that they do not want their children to go to a school where they will be asked for contributions on that or even a larger scale. I really believe that poorer parents will be deterred from sending their children to the best schools if the expectation is that any decent parent will chip in with substantial amounts of money for basic essentials if the child is to remain at the school.
  I have given one example but there are others, and I have asked the Secretary of State to gather together what evidence he has so far on how much of this is going on. This is a serious worry and I believe that the positive action which the Government must take in response to the report must include an indication that they do not intend schools to become dependent on parents for the provision of essentials. I leave aside the circumstances in which groups of parents have got together in the hope of saving a small village school by providing some of the important ancillary functions. There have been examples of that in East Anglia and elsewhere, and I welcome them as an attempt to maintain small village schools, but even that does not include the essentials of tuition, basic books and equipment.
  Teacher training is a subject which nobody has mentioned, but the inspectors did mention it. They said that the limitation of expenditure on higher education was having some adverse effects on teacher training, and the effect that they lighted upon was this. They said that there was evidence, for example, that the range and scope of courses was being restricted in the important area of school experience. If one talks to anybody who has had teacher training, particularly at one of the older teacher training colleges, he will say that the thing that he most valued was the teaching practice and the parts of the course which related to the teaching practice. A phrase in the Conservative manifesto stated that in teacher training there should be more emphasis on practical skills and on maintaining discipline.
  As a result of present restrictions, problems are arising in the very areas in which the teacher is being trained and equipped for the classroom and for confronting pupils. Therefore, the Government's actions contradict what was said in the Conservative Party's manifesto. Most of those who know anything about teacher training would agree that the Government risk depriving teacher training of its most important feature, namely, the training of teachers for the classroom. Through teaching experience, the teacher can be assessed and guided. That is more important than courses on the philosophy of education and all the other desirable components of teacher training. It is practical experience, the assessment and the trainee's development during his practical training that are particularly important.
  Mr. R. B. Cant: According to the leaked document—the public expenditure White Paper to be issued next week—there will be further closures of teacher training colleges. Is it not a serious matter that the Department of Education and Science seems to be working on that?
  Mr. Beith: If I were to get involved with the subject of leaked documents and the closure of teacher training colleges, I would be here for some time. For the moment, I shall content myself by saying that whatever institutional framework is provided for teacher training—whether it be a college or a university institute—practical experience is important. Cuts must not be allowed to bear on that.
  A few weeks ago we debated further education. The inspectors have said a few things about that. The draft report was only just available at that time. Although I do not wish to go into the subject matter that was raised then, I hope that it is still fresh in the Government's mind. Indeed, I hope that the comments that came from both sides of the House about the impact of cuts on further education have been recognised. Some telling comments were made from Government Back-Benchers as well as from the Opposition Benches about further education and its importance.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland with responsibility for education came to my constituency last weekend. He did not tell me that he would be coming. If he had told me, I would have arranged to show him some examples of further education in my constituency. However, he made a speech and said:
  "It may seem strange at this time of high unemployment but I have been told repeatedly by senior people in industries such as energy and electronics that the only real impediment to the future development of these industries in Britain could be a shortage of skilled people at both graduate and technician level."
  The hon. Gentleman went on to describe the challenge that that represented to the education system. He stressed further education and said:
  "In further education colleges and industrial training centres we have a great deal of under-used capacity, particularly in the evenings and weekends, and this could be utilised at a marginal cost."
  But it is on precisely these"marginal cost" items that local authorities are being forced to make savings: items such as the overtime of caretakers who keep colleges open in the evenings, the salaries and fees paid to casual staff who are brought in to teach at evening classes, and the discretionary grants to students in these colleges of further education.
  The Under-Secretary developed his argument about the need to widen education in such economical ways. He said:
  "Let nothing or no one stand in the way."
  The programme of cuts that local authorities have undertaken at the behest of Ministers stands in the way. Therefore, the Minister was unrealistic, although his aim was justifiable and was one with which I could agree. He sought to make the best use of existing resources, but he was unrealistic because he could not recognise that the ability to use those resources is being hindered by the desperate attempts of local authorities to meet the target for cuts.
  Alongside these concerns lies the assisted places scheme. Earlier, the figure for the current level of expenditure on it was slightly misquoted. Nevertheless, millions of pounds are going into the scheme. I hope that the Secretary of State will recognise that the assisted places scheme is seen as a slight to State education. In addition, it removes resources that the State system desperately needs.
  The regulations before the House illustrate that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is offering more generous provision for meals, travel and uniforms to those who enter
  470
  the assisted places scheme. Those in the State sector, who have lower levels of income, receive less help. Given the concern expressed by the inspectors, we must decide which way to go. At the very least, I beg the Government to stop pretending that there is nothing the matter. The Secretary of State said that at least the fabric of education was not disintegrating. I do not know how he intended that remark to be taken. If the fabric of education was disintegrating, he should have resigned long ago.
  Mr. Mark Carlisle: I said that only because that accusation had been made against me.
  Mr. Beith: That is not what the inspectors' report states. The report said that some serious things were going wrong in a minority of schools. It said that the situation could become more widespread and serious if positive action was not taken. The fabric of education is crumbling dangerously at the edges. I hope that the Secretary of State will recognise that, hurtful though it may be. The inspectorate specifically calls for a positive response. I wonder whether the Secretary of State wryly thinks back to another commitment in the Conservative Party manifesto, namely, that the inspectorate should be strengthened. The right hon. and learned Gentleman could best strengthen the inspectorate by giving effect to its recommendations.
  I should like to make two recommendations, one of which I have already hinted at. The right hon. and learned Gentleman should abandon the assisted places scheme. He should bring the money spent on that scheme into the State sector. Secondly, he must begin to win some Cabinet battles. He must stop bleeding the education system. This is an essential investment. Unless we are careful, we shall perpetuate a cycle of decline.
  The Secretary of State stressed the country's economic position and the limitations that that imposed on educational resources. However, industry keeps telling him that if the education system cannot provide people with the necessary skills, training, knowledge and adaptability to staff the prosperous industries of the future, we shall not get the prosperity that will provide the resources to improve the education system. Many key sectors of the education system, such as adult education, must receive investment if we are to recover. Industry has given the right hon. and learned Gentleman that message. He must recognise it. We cannot sacrifice education as if it were a temporary luxury which the country could afford to do without while it is in economic difficulties. This is not the time to argue against the right hon. and learned Gentleman's interpretation of how the country should react in the present economic crisis. Certainly, we do not share the Government's monetarist policy. Even given the Government's conception of what we should be doing, the ability to staff prosperous industries should be a priority. The education system cannot do that if the trends described in the report continue. Therefore, it is the right hon. and learned Gentleman's job to respond positively rather than in the complacent manner of the amendment.
  7.6 pm
  Mr. Harry Greenway: As a former schoolmaster, may I join the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) in saying how nice it is to see you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in the Chair? As a member of the teaching profession, I am proud that half of the occupants of the Chair are former members of it.
  Mr. J. F. Pawsey: We shall not hold that against you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Greenway: One of the phenomena of the mid to late 1970s was the growth of private schooling in poor areas. Parents were determined to give their children the education that they believed in. That phenomenon continues. As a result of the Hereford-Worcester judgment, there will be more such institutions. Parents will want their children to be educated in the basic subjects and they will want them to receive education in those areas that have, for nearly 40 years, been supported by parental contribution. It is tragic that the law has been tested in this way. In future it will be difficult for parents to make such provision for extra subjects.
  I am in and out of schools a great deal and I often talk with former colleagues and other teachers. All teachers welcome the report and the Government's courage in publishing it. It is notable that there were three HMI reports before this which were not published. That speaks for itself. Every head, deputy and assistant teacher I know holds the HMI in the highest esteem. Nearly all the inspectors are former teachers, lecturers of a high standard, heads of schools and so on. However, HMI has never been accepted by the teaching profession as the judge and jury in everything. The inspectors come into schools, give advice, and make comments, and, when teachers and head teachers have listened and done what they can in the light of suggestions made, they have gone along with them. They have not been the be-all and end-all of everything in education.
  It was basically wrong of the Labour Government in 1968 to stop full inspections of schools by Her Majesty's Inspectorate. That is one of the fundamental problems with schools. They are no longer subject to sudden inspection by teams of inspectors. Inspectors went to the schools, not to pull them apart but to give advice and to see what was going on. It was a salutary pepper to have and it was a pity that it was stopped.
  In talking to colleagues in schools, I wonder what is the precise source of the information in the HMI report. There are 414 HMIs and 34,000 schools. The report mentions L000 visits. One wonders how the visits were conducted. I have talked to head teachers who have had HMI inspections and I have had such visits myself for many years, including the past two years. Inspectors visit the schools to see the teachers teaching. They ask questions about the equipment teachers have in a particular department, how many children they handle, and so on. They probably glean a good deal of information. I am not sure that they always get the full picture. I may be a heretic but I would not be regarded as a heretic by the teaching profession for saying that. I am not saying that the inspectors are not shrewd and canny or that they are not of high quality, but I do not believe that they always have the fullest picture. I am highly critical of the way that they are now operating—just dropping into schools, perhaps getting answers to questions, and producing reports which are significant—because the HMIs have rightly been regarded as people of high quality. My uncle was an HMI for years and we have had HMIs in the family. However, I am not happy about the way that they operate and they may wish to investigate the system of operation themselves.
  The Opposition's case is put by Labour spokesmen all over the country. They must face up to what other hon.
  472
  Members have said in the debate—that just to pour money into the education system is not the answer. The way resources are used is crucial. The way capitation allowances are used is what matters, not always the amount involved. I am not saying that a small sum would necessarily be sufficient.
  The present highest ever pupil-teacher ratio can be beneficial to schools only if it is properly used. There are teachers who can teach 1,000 children—I have done so myself—and there are some who cannot teach five. The way in which teachers are deployed is what matters. That is the significance of the pupil-teacher ratio and the favourable nature of it. It is up to schools to make good use of the additional teachers that they have, and I think most schools are doing that.
  Changes have taken place in resource allocations. The Educational Publishers Association—what body could have a more deeply vested interest—tells us that there are fewer books in schools, but one never hears it say how much the whole technology of schools has changed. Teachers now produce work sheets. Most schools have a good photocopier which turns out the work sheets. The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) may laugh, but that is a fact. I know that there are legal problems, but a work sheet is produced by a teacher. If there is any copyright involved, it belongs to the local authority, so I shall not go into deeper waters than that. Therefore, there will be fewer books. The advantage of work sheets is that the work children are doing is much more immediately related to the subject and the times in which we live than work taken out of textbooks. That, therefore, has been a valuable development.
  A good deal of expensive modern technology has not helped. I taught French for years and I thought that the arrival of language laboratories was totally unhelpful to the teaching of the subject. They are very expensive and the fact that some schools do not have them is a matter for criticism throughout the country in education provision, but it is nonsense. I think that there are too many films in some schools. That is another modern development. It is mistaken to include films when there should be teaching. There are photography classes in many schools. It is often thought that a way of engaging children who are low achievers is to give them cameras and send them off to take photographs. That is very expensive, and I do not think it is an especially educational activity. I want to see the HMI ferreting after that sort of activity a little harder.
  The hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) mentioned in flowing and strong terms mixed-ability teaching. I was pleased to hear him pick up the inspectorate's condemnation of that. I presume that he was condemning mixed-ability teaching as a method of teaching. If that is so, I welcome his remarks. That leaves out of consideration the view that has been taken by many educationists, not only on the Left Wing, that mixed-ability teaching is an advanced form of integrating children both educationally and socially. I do not believe that that is so.
  Mr. Frank Field: I speak on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock). I understood him to be saying something different, namely, that from the Conservative Benches one hears criticisms of mixed-ability teaching. The inspectors' report noted how that was being done on age as well as

  473
  ability. Given the concern of the Government about mixed-ability teaching, they should join with the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) in expressing concern about that aspect of the inspectorate's report.
  Mr. Greenway: I am grateful for that clarification. Of course the hon. Member will know, as I mentioned in an intervention, that the concept of family groups of mixed age within two or three years of each other being taught together is an educational concept that has been pushed principally by what I might call, I hope not unfairly, Left-wing educationists. It is a failure in terms of its ability to deliver education to all people, in my opinion. Others take a contrary view. I note that the Opposition Front Bench would be opposed to it, and that they will say that throughout the country. It would strengthen their standing in educational circles, if I may say without wishing to appear patronising.
  The supply of teachers in the right subjects has been crucial and has not been achieved for 20 years at least. Some areas have never been properly covered with teachers. Handicraft teachers have never been in sufficient supply. I see you smiling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I may be ringing a bell with you. There has never been an adequate supply of French teachers and other language teachers. There is nothing new about that.
  Teachers have always taught subjects for which they are not qualified. But that is unacceptable only in religious education. It is totally wrong. It is wrong for somebody unqualified in religion to teach the subject unless he has belief. Belief is part of being qualified to teach that subject. It is most desirable that teachers should be qualified in the subject that they teach. If a man or woman has the ability to teach, he probably teaches subjects other than his own with considerable facility and ability. This has happened for many years, if not always.
  Maths and science teachers are not available today because the supply of teachers has been in the wrong subjects. Colleges of education have put too many resources into the wrong subjects—particularly sociology. For many years there has been no problem in getting teachers qualified in sociology. It is clear that a large amount of resources has gone into the producing of such teachers, when those resources should have been diverted into producing mathematicians and scientists. That has been one of the misplacements of resources in recent years.
  Miss Joan Lestor: The hon. Gentleman said that it was unnecessary for people to qualify in the subject that they were teaching. Does that mean that the recent pressure to have teachers of maths in primary schools shown to be qualified to a certain level is not acceptable to him?
  Mr. Greenway: I did not say that it was unnecessary for people to be qualified in the subjects that they are teaching. What I said was that for generations teachers have taught subjects that they are not qualified to teach. That is quite a different thing. What I say to the Government and to all those who are interested in education is that the schools should be given a proper supply of teachers in the right subjects. If they are, they will deliver as they have never delivered before.
  The HMI report says that in many cases buildings are somewhat dilapidated, but buildings have always been out
  474
  of date. In going about London one can see strong, durable buildings that were put up at the turn of the century by the London School Board. They are as good as any modern building and a good deal better than most buildings. Many teachers prefer to work in them rather than in some of the modern buildings. Yet such buildings are termed out of date simply because they are so old.
  The NUT, the AMMA and many other unions have fought for years against having lavatories in playgrounds. Indeed, there has been a campaign against them for about 20 years; we are all against them.
  I recall a story concerning the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science—my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson)—when he first came to teach in East London 20 years ago. One of his problems was that the pupils at the Robert Montefiore school were particularly addicted to gambling and smoking. One of their habits was to go into the lavatories, which he could see from his office. He would see great clouds of smoke coming up. One day he decided to do something about it. He said to his schoolkeeper"Lock the doors". I am telling the story in my hon. Friend's absence but he will know the story. The schoolkeeper locked the doors of the lavatories at either end, 999 was dialled and the fire brigade duly came. Strong hoses were put into the lavatories from either end for a good 20 minutes, after which the doors were opened. Spluttering pupils emerged, asking what was happening. My hon. Friend said"I saw a fire and I had to send for the fire brigade". That cured the problem. Indeed, it is a tribute to a former headmaster for the way in which he handled an awkward problem.
  Schools need order before work can be done. This is an area which needs much more attention from all those who are interested in education. Many education authorities need to review their attitudes to discipline. Discipline ought to cost nothing. It is not unfair to say that Labour authorities in particular seem to believe that all behaviour and discipline in schools can be based on love and kindness. They take a somewhat unrealistic view of the position which they face.
  Sanctions available to teachers, by which they can keep good order and discipline, which are fundamental to good learning and good behaviour, are being pared away—and not only by Labour authorities, although to a large extent it is being done by them. Nothing is put in the place of those sanctions. The teaching profession has greatly resented this policy, and teachers find it very difficult to handle pupils without those sanctions being available.
  Mr. Field: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman has the chicken and the egg in the right order? The important ILEA study on this question showed that, in schools where pupils believed that they were achieving, there were no discipline problems, or fewer problems. It was in those schools where there as a lack of achievement on the part of the pupils that there were discipline problems, hence the resort to the methods that I believe the hon. Gentleman is now going on to describe.
  Mr. Greenway: I do not know what the hon. Gentleman anticipated I was about to say. However, I shall say what I was about to say. It has been a tragedy to replace a great many of the perfectly reasonable sanctions that have been available to teachers with the right of heads and school governors to suspend or even to expel pupils. At present, an inordinate number of children are

  475
  suspended from their school, and that is a great tragedy. The system is not working well and it needs to be looked at.
  Good order is based upon good relationships in schools. It is not based upon a lot of fear. I have nothing like that to say. It is also based on very positive encouragement from teachers to children. Teachers need positive encouragement. So do heads, and so do local authorities. I want the HMI to produce a more positive report in the future.
  The teacher has always been regarded as being in loco parentis in school, and the teacher has to have available to him the sort of sanction that the reasonable parent—not the wild, silly parent—has. It has been dangerous to remove sanctions of that sort.
  We must build up dedication in schools. We need to have the dedication of teachers to their pupils and of pupils to the task for which they attend school. Parents must be involved even more than they are. I hope that HMI will continue to produce critical reports when they have to, but I hope that inspectors wll do all they can to encourage. A thimbleful of encouragement goes much farther than a bucketful of discouragement and critisims. Let them remember that.
  7.27 pm
  Mr. Stan Thorne: The Secretary of State chided my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) for ignoring the economic position in opening the debate. The Secretary of State then made two particular points. First, he said that we ought not to be spending what we have not got. Second, he said"We cannot afford it"—by which he meant some of the things to which my hon. Friend had been referring.
  I challenge those two points made by the Secretary of State. The Government have used their majority in this House only this week to launch forth on a massive expenditure of £5,000 million-plus on Trident. I have had letters from constituents this week—I am sure that I am not alone in this respect—urging that the Government should be spending more on education rather than on nuclear weapons.
  The Secretary of State should not say that we cannot spend what we have not got. He should be open and honest and say that the Government prefer that money should be spent on nuclear arms rather than on education for our children. The policy of the Government illustrates, in various ways, such an order of priorities. The rate support grant illustrates the need to cut public expenditure. There are to be reductions in health and education and a contraction of the fire service and other aspects of public expenditure. This policy, however, is not to apply to defence. It is false to argue, as the Secretary of State did, that we have not got the resources to spend on education and that we cannot afford the resources on education. What the right hon. and learned Gentleman should have said was that, in the Government's view, nuclear arms come before the education of our children.
  We in Lancashire are, of course, not divorced from this situation. Cuts amounting to £10 million are already in the pipeline. There are to be major cuts in further education staffing with a consequent effect on youth unemployment. The decisions being taken by the Lancashire county education authority are contrary to the spirit of the Macfarlane report. Youth unemployment and further education provision are inseparable, especially in our
  476
  present economic situation. I have received today a copy of the local paper that appears in the Preston area. A headline on the front page reads
  "The dole killed my son".
  The report says:
  "More dole queues with more dole deaths to come is the opinion of the father of a 17-year-old who jumped from a railway bridge on to a railway track because of his particular circumstances."
  What were the circumstances? The youth left school and obtained a job. He was happy in his work. He was made redundant at the age of 17—not 47—and considered immediately the prospect of re-training and returning to education to find opportunities to develop a different approach to life. He found extreme difficulty obtaining a course that should be provided in the educational services for lads with no real past academic success, in terms of O and A-levels, who are anxious to return to further education in acceptance of the changes that they have to make to find alternative forms of employment.
  The Preston polytechnic should be going ahead with major educational development, particularly in computers and scientific technological areas. What, in fact, is it being asked to do? We can recall reports, some never mentioned in the House these days, about adult education which have not been carried into effect. The possibility that they will be carried into effect under this Government is almost nil. I know that the Secretary of State, giving evidence to the Select Committee recently, indicated that there was evidence of a fall in demand for further education. I challenged him then, and I still challenge him. Rather than a fall in demand for further education, there is an upturn in demand. The problem is that the local authorities an; unable to meet that upturn because of cuts. The figures from the DES therefore indicate a fall in the provision, not in demand. This is a question on which the Government Front Bench spokesman may have some comment to make in replying to the debate.
  Mr. John Carlisle: The hon. Gentleman has told the House that the Trident missile will cost £5,000 million. He has gone on to plead the case in his own constituency for further education. What we have not heard from any Opposition Member is the cost that would be involved in restoring these cuts and carrying out the sort of programme that a Labour Government might have implemented had they been elected. Will the hon. Gentleman perhaps indicate the cost, both in the short term and in the long term, in relation to Trident?
  Mr. Thorne: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has illustrated the divisions on the Conservative Benches in regard to this problem. The House heard earlier from the hon. Member for Gravesend (Mr. Brinton) that it is not a question of improving resources in education. To the hon. Member for Gravesend, that is largely irrelevant. Now the House has heard from the hon. Member for Luton, West (Mr. Carlisle) that he is concerned about the provision of resources. The hon. Gentleman knows that I do not possess facilities that enable me to put figures on specific aspects of improvements in education provision. I am under no illusions about the propensity of my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) to produce something out of the hat to illustrate the areas where educational provision could be improved and at what cost. I have every faith and confidence in my hon. Friend's ability to reply to the hon. Gentleman's question.

  477
  I do not wish to enter upon an in-depth analysis of the situation in Lancashire. I recognise that other hon. Members wish to speak. Apart from the question of staffing in the polytechnic and in further education institutions, we have cuts in such absurd areas as caretaking hours and the cleaning of schools and other educational establishments, with the inevitable consequences for local unemployment. In contrast to that situation, it is reported that a new private independent school hopes to provide bright children with teaching in technical computing and scientific and technical subjects. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty will be able to pursue this matter at some future date.
  I am sure that the Secretary of State's response would be that such a school sounds extremely valuable. However, people pay taxes and rates for the public sector to provide for the teaching of computer sciences and similar subjects in our schools and colleges of further education. What is the situation in those schools? Equipment provision has been cut. Computer teaching development is seriously hampered. Only one school and two sixth-form colleges in Preston have moneys this year to improve the situation in computer technology. There is no new money for equipment in the remainder of Preston's schools. That is a consequence of the cuts by the Lancashire county authority.
  Reference was made by the Secretary of State, with some satisfaction, to the pupil-teacher ratio. The right hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to be arguing that, contrary to the inspectors' report, the situation was much more favourable than would appear to be the case from the report. I have to inform him that, in Preston, the pupil-teacher ratio has changed from 17·5:1 to 18:1. In other words, the situation has worsened in the secondary schools in Preston as it has in Lancashire generally, with a consequent pro rata reduction in sixth-form staffing. Some courses may have to cease altogether and compulsory redundancies may ensue. The aim is to save £1½ million. Inevitably, there is a risk to the core curriculum. Standards in modern languages and metalwork in Lancashire institutions will suffer.
  I shall be interested to know from the Under-Secretary of State whether the legal decision concerning music teaching of recent date applies also to swimming charges during the school day. It seems likely that someone will fasten on to that as being worthy of testing in law.
  I do not want to deal in depth with some aspects of the report that have already been covered by those of my hon. Friends who are also members of the Select Committee. However, parents and the public generally in Lancashire, are entitled to know whether Lancashire is among the 15 per cent. of authorities that have been identified by the inspectorate as forming the group with the worst provision in terms of buildings, staffing, books and equipment. I hope that the Minister will clarify that.
  I have already mentioned cuts in staffing and in various other aspects that are necessitated by the £10 million cutback. Schools with special needs—surely an area in which the Secretary of State is not anxious to see cutbacks—have had scrubbed those new developments based upon education needs. Staffing cuts in secondary schools have an effect on remedial teaching. Increased pressure falls on that department. That arises from cuts in
  478
  other parts of the curriculum. It is a sorry story of reduced education provision at a time when major improvements should be taking place.
  We are said to be facing another technological revolution. My hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty was right to argue that forcefully. Our young people are not and will not be adequately prepared for its consequences on the basis of the Government's education policies.
  7.43 pm
  Mr. William van Straubenzee: This is the most extraordinary debate. We were told at the beginning that the whole world was alight because of the inspectorate's report. It was claimed that the public were crowding at the doors to hear what we were going to say. We heard that there was an enormous amount of interest in the subject. At certain times there have been only three Labour Back Benchers in the Chamber.
  Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: There are only five Labour Back Benchers in the Chamber now.
  Mr. van Straubenzee: That is so. I was referring to times when fairly weighty speeches were being made. This is one of the dampest parliamentary squibs that we have ever had. However, we have had some useful and relaxed discussion of some education problems and I shall inject one or two brief thoughts into the debate. As the Government are under attack and as Ministers are alleged to be so hopelessly incompetent, we are entitled to say that the Opposition, as an example of attack with vigour and spirit, are a broken reed. In those terms, the debate has been a useful occasion.
  The circumstances that I have described are not unusual. I wonder whether other hon. Members will recall an earlier occasion which stirred in my memory and caused me to leave the Chamber to consult Hansard. Very much the same happened in 1974 when the then Conservative Government were still in office. I was not ministerially responsible on that occasion. Those who are interested will find that I refer to 28 January 1974. The speeches are astonishingly alike. In those days, we used to hear the confident voice of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) when debating these issues. We now hear more musical tones from the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock).
  There was a Labour motion of censure on 28 January 1974 that deplored the Government's intention to reduce the planned increases in education expenditure. That was followed by a general election when a Labour election manifesto committed a future Labour Government to continued expenditure, including, for example, increased provision for nursery education. Four years later we were able to take a rain check. After the motion of censure and the promises that followed—it was exactly as tonight in that the then Labour Opposition were saying"Vote for us because we are the goodies and the Conservatives are the baddies, the Conservatives are everything that is bad in education terms and if you vote for us it will all come right"—total spending on education in the financial year 1977–78 was 1 per cent. less in real terms than in 1973–74, the last full year of the tenure of office of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister as Secretary of State for Education and Science.
  It is significant and central to the debate that the 1 per cent. reduction accompanied a rise in the school

  479
  population of over half a million. By far the hardest-hit item in those days was capital expenditure, which, after the years of a Labour Government had decreased by more than one half.
  I shall not waste time by looking back on those barren years. It is sheer hypocrisy for Labour Members to suggest that they have a splendid record that they could repeat. The truth is that economic factors bear very heavily on them. The record demonstrates that they made substantial cuts in education expenditure at a time of rising school rolls.
  Have we a commitment? Did we hear a commitment today to make restoration? I recall the article written by the hon. Member for Bedwellty that appeared in autumn 1980 in Labour Weekly. I think that the hon. Gentleman ended up in some trouble subsequently. It included the following sentence:
  "In the absence of firmly agreed Labour Party policy giving specific public expenditure priority to particular services removed by three or four years of Toryism,it would be mistaken and unconvincing to create the illusion that we will fully or quickly restore the cuts made by the Tories."
  That was an honest statement. I note that the hon. Gentleman nods assent. He must be invited to stick to it when he makes the criticisms that we have heard during the debate.
  Mr. Kinnock: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his characteristically generous remarks. Without being tiresome, I could remind the hon. Gentleman that I made much the same comments about restoration on six or seven occasions subsequently. That does not diminish my feelings about the evidence contained in the inspectorate's report. I sincerely hope that he will fully endorse what I have said and join us in the Division Lobby in demonstrating his anxiety about the effect of continual cuts in the fabric of education under Conservative and Labour Governments.
  Mr. van Straubenzee: I shall move on to the inspectorate's report. It is to the credit of the hon. Gentleman that in Opposition he is extremely careful not to commit his party. I note that he nods in agreement. Let that be clearly understood by us all. It is a fair position to adopt. However, it weakens the cutting edge of criticism if the hon. Gentleman accepts basically the economic conditions—he is right to do so—in which a Government have to work.
  The truth is that these are very long-term matters. I have described the situation before, in what I hope was a friendly way. I hope that the hon. Member for Bedwelty never discovers it for himself, but if he does, he will find that going into any form of ministerial office—and I have never done so at a senior level—is very much like taking over the control panel of a very large liner. One may imagine that one has wonderful controls to pull so that everything happens at once, but it does not. In fact, a shift in direction for a large liner is comparatively slow. Indeed, I think that that is one of our problems in this country.
  Many of the factors in the HMI report are therefore of far longer lineage than things which have happened in the last year or so. Any hon. Member seeking confirmation of that need only read paragraph 6 of the report. I shall not quote it in extenso, but that paragraph concentrates on the schools which give the inspectorate the most concern—and I am sure that this is shared by the whole House. The inspectorate makes the comment that it is not possible in such schools to disentangle the results of
  480
  financial policies and inflation from the effects of falling rolls. I do not think that even now we have all grasped some of the problems caused by falling rolls.
  Secondly, the inspectorate makes the express point that it is not, broadly speaking, making comparisons between one year and another. It is concerned solely with whether the standard of provision is good enough. That is what the inspectorate is after, rather than making these very much more immediate comparisons. Incidentally, while we are talking about the inspectorate, I think that sufficient time has gone by to remind ourselves that the inspectorate took a very severe knock as a result of the first report of a Select Committee upon which I served. I shall refer in a moment to Select Committees. I am hoping that the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) will return to his place. I should like to make reference to him as he has demonstrated himself in action during the debate. I should like to wait, however, in the hope that I shall not have to make that comment in his absence.
  It is a fact of history that the inspectorate was considerably affected by that Select Committee report. I believe that when history is written it will be said that one of the major contributions of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister when she was Secretary of State was to rebuild and to restore the confidence of that remarkable body of men and women. They have maintained their independence. They are Her Majesty's inspectors, not the Secretary of State's inspectors. Yet they work alongside officials and thus advise Ministers. In that way, they ensure that Ministers are informed in a remarkable way. That is done, of course, by means of a series of pieces of advice. The fifth report is therefore just one report in a constant monitoring process.
  I wish to make two points at this stage. First, we are talking about cash. I believe that both sides of the House must recognise that there is a limit to the burden that the ratepayer will bear. We who are interested in the subject and, by inference, are pressing in a reasonable way for increased resources as the economy picks up must remember that in many cases the rate burden is overwhelming. We are now seeing some very interesting examples of civic leaders responding to electoral opinion. Labour councillors in Camden have abstained. Even in the London borough of Lambeth, in which I am a double ratepayer and therefore feel very strongly on the subject of supplementary rates, Mr. Knight—
  Mr. Pawsey: Red Ted.
  Mr. van Straubenzee: I am told that he is called Red Ted. Unlike my hon. Friend, I am not fortunate enough to have his personal acquaintance. Even Mr. Knight is reported in this morning's papers to be responding very much more to the pressures of the electorate's reaction.
  Secondly, the report comments that reduction in the teacher force through early retirement is considerably more prevalent than it was. I wish to ask in a careful way whether that is actually a criticism. Is it actually a bad thing? I believe that amateurs such as myself tend to overlook the very demanding nature of teaching and the fact that it is very easy to"burn out". Therefore, so long as it is on honourable terms, I do not regard a certain increase in early retirement as a disadvantage.
  This leads me to ask whether we could not move in terms of standards into fixed-term contracts, particularly for head teachers. I say this with care, as I recently had

  481
  the pleasure of contact with the National Association of Head Teachers and I have learnt that it had the impression that I was pleading for a fixed term of five years only. To the best of my knowledge, I have never attached my argument to any particular term of years. Suffice it to say that I would regard five years as too short a period. I am not concerned at this stage with the details, but I believe that it would make a geat change if we could move—on honourable terms, by which, of course, I mean financially protective terms—to a fixed period, initially renewable, for those taking up these enormously responsible posts.
  I must say that I had expected that we should be honoured today with a comment on education policy by the new Social Democrats. I was watching for this, as I saw the hon. Member for Thornaby (Mr. Wrigglesworth), whom the whole House likes greatly, come in with a very heavy bundle of papers. Indeed, I do not think that I mislead the House in saying that I think that the great bunch of papers on the Bench opposite belongs to him. We were told that the new party would unfold its policies as debate succeeded debate. I should like to know whether Mrs. Shirley Williams is the dominant figure in the new party. Will there be the total hostility that she has always displayed towards independent education? Will she seek to influence that party to return to a centralised system of enforcing comprehensive reorganisation on everybody? We should like to have known all those things from the Social Democrats, had their representative who came in earlier taken the opportunity to speak. I am very clear about what they are against, but I am much less clear as to what they support.
  I must now make the reference that I delayed making, as the House will acknowledge, to the hon. Member for Lewisham, West, who took part in the debate very much as Chairman of the Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts. I wish simply to say this. I have always regarded the new Select Committees as important. But I have also always imagined that their respective Chairmen would step back a little, although perhaps not totally, from the party conflict, particularly on the subjects with which their Select Committees are concerned. I myself have been a Chairman of a Select Committee, although not on this subject. I think I can say that I was exceedingly careful not to say anything in public while that Committee was dealing with the particular subject in question, or if I did, it was certainly with the greatest care. We saw the hon. Member for Lewisham, West in action today. We saw him in careful cahoots with the Opposition Front Bench. We heard him question the Secretary of State. We saw him assume a certain official position on behalf of the Select Committee—which I do not think he was entitled to do. I cannot ask whether he was entitled to do so because no members of the Select Committee are present.
  Mr. John H. Osborn: One hon. Member of the Select Committee has already spoken in the debate.
  Mr. van Straubenzee: That was not a criticism of members of the Committee. I hope that my hon. Friend understands that. I have not been able to ask whether the chairman was speaking with the authority of the Committee members when he intervened. He gave the appearance that he was doing so on behalf of the Select Committee. That is a constitutional point.
  482
  We heard a useful announcement yesterday about overseas students, which I warmly welcome. When my hon. Friend the Minister replies he may wish to comment briefly on it. I share with many hon. Members a concern about the problem of overseas students. I have always accepted that, once differential fees were instituted by the Opposition, it would lead inevitably, under one Government or another, to full cost fees. I fully understand that the number of overseas students is 2,000 higher than the figure allowed for in the expenditure plans of the Labour Government.
  Nevertheless, I am sure that I express the view of many hon. Members who seek to be responsible—of course in economic terms—by saying that we feel a sense of anxiety about our provision for overseas students. Therefore, I welcome yesterday's announcement by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, about the allocation of sufficient funds to the training programmes for 1981–82 to restore the number of new awards to developing countries under Government-to-Government programmes and the Commonwealth scholarship and fellowship plan to about the levels that existed in 1978 and 1979.
  I am delighted to know that the Government have extended the fee support scheme and plan to make up to 300 awards available to selected privately financed postgraduates from developing countries who are suffering hardship as a result of the increases. That displays a remarkable way forward. It opens the way increasingly to finance that enormous effort—not from the Department of Education and Science, but from the Overseas Development Administration. It is proof of the way in which the Government are responsive to representations in that area, and shows that they are anxious to maintain their initiative.
  I end where I began. If this is a motion of censure, it is the lamest duck that I have known for years. It shows that much of the criticism is based on misunderstanding and hot air.
  8.3 pm
  Mr. D. E. Thomas: I do not want to follow the remarks of the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) other than on one point. I do not need to defend the Chairman of the Select Committee, but if the hon. Gentleman was referring to his question to the Secretary of State about information on specific local authorities I advise him that the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South-West (Mr. Cormack) was one of the Members who pleaded strongly in Committee for the information to be made public.
  Yet again we have heard the Secretary of State's argument that he is working within the constraints of what we can afford. I want to put a point to him in similar terms to the point put to him by my colleague in Committee, the hon. Member for Preston, North (Mr. Thome). Within the logic of his position, he is undermining the basis of the education service as viewed from a"capitalist perspective". If he believes that the economy consists of the unstable equation of capital and labour leading to production, he must surely understand that the training of skilled labour or the investment in human capital is an essential part of that productive equation. He is undermining the basis of a future labour force.
  Part of the contrariness of the argument is that the Government—and before the hon. Member for Bedwellty

  483
  (Mr. Kinnock) becomes too supportive of me my point applies also to the Labour Government—have reduced education expenditure and then found themselves having to increase the educational aspects of other short-term training programmes. We must face that contradiction when considering the way in which education cuts affect the economy as a whole.
  My concern is both with the existing report for England and with the not yet existing report for Wales. I shall say more about that later. The report on expenditure by local authorities in England begins, as the report itself says, from an inherited baseline. We are looking at the study of provision undertaken by the inspectorate in 1980. It is based, apparently, on studies that have been made since the Labour Government began reducing public expenditure. I want to emphasise that the overall statistics used conceal the disparities and the widening gaps between individual schools and specific areas. When I intervened in the Secretary of State's speech in relation to pupil-teacher ratios, the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not take my point. Perhaps the Under-Secretary will take it up when he replies. Paragraph 4 of the report says that on the basis of the inherited baseline, the gaps seem to be widening.
  On the question of secondary schools, paragraph 51 states:
  "the differences between schools and areas are getting more marked."
  In the first year of the exercise from the 1980 baseline a wider gap has been opened. The areas that are already not as effective in their provision are those which are having their provision reduced—for example, the inner city areas and the areas under stress.
  The baseline is a difficult concept. Perhaps the Minister will address himself to that point when he replies. I hope that the inspectorate will look again at the way in which it functions. The chief inspector for secondary education, Miss Marshall, told the Select Committee that the baseline consisted of a look at curricular provision and also a look at whether
  "the resources which support that provision are of a kind which could reasonably be expected to provide the children with what they need."
  There is an element of an objective judgment on the actual spending of authorities. There is also the professional subjective judgment of the inspectorate itself. That should be related to the educational needs of areas.
  I raised that point in Committee in relation to the cultural needs of ethnic minorities, especially in the present context of deepening racial tension in Britain and the educational provision for the black minority. I asked whether the baseline took into account the real needs of a specific authority. In answer to that, Miss Browne said:
  "If you are saying, 'Could one take an authority and take elements that are made up of the baseline and postulate what would happen, for example, if the staffing ratio were better?'—then one could look at that and arrive at a different notional assessment of need for that authority."
  That is absolutely crucial. When I stressed the example of provision for ethnic authorities, Miss Browne said:
  "That would figure in that element of this baseline assessment which is efficacy of provision."
  I quote that because it is essential that we base our line on the needs of authorities, not only on the historic spending pattern. If we base it simply on the historic spending pattern, we achieve a continuing pattern of inequality because authorities that had had a lower level of spending in the past, not sufficient to meet the needs within the
  484
  authority—especially the needs of ethnic minorities—achieve a relative provision that becomes worse.
  The other point which must be made, and which has already been made, is that those returns ante-date the announcement of the RSG cuts. Therefore, there is not a real projection of the position as it already affects authorities, as they are having to make further cuts for next financial year.
  With regard to primary school provisions, I am concerned about the loose way in which the concept of falling rolls is being used. We have not had enough careful discussion on the diseconomies of falling rolls. The simplistic analysis which the Secretary of State has tended to use fails to understand that falling rolls are more expensive at the top end of the primary school and that, in terms of the pattern of spending, falling rolls have an effect of diseconomy. One of the effects of falling rolls on primary schools is that, as the number of children falls,
  "more schools are losing part time members of staff, many of whom concentrate on children who are finding it difficult to learn to read."
  The paragraph states that in paragraph 46. It continues:
  "This is a particular example of the way in which schools tend to fall back on making common provision for children as resources become tighter. The possibility of dealing with children with any form of learning difficulty or of offering special work for the gifted is reduced. Secondary schools cannot easily make up for this at a later date".
  The effects of the cuts in primary education and the over-simplistic understanding of the effects of falling rolls will make it more difficult for our secondary schools when they come to cope with the diseconomies of falling rolls and with the needs of children who have not been adequately educated, even to the existing standards of what I would describe as not under-achieving pupils but underachieving schools.
  The report makes those points clearly and succinctly in paragraph 58:
  "Most of the above comments relate to the effects in terms of the maintenance of school provision as it now exists. They need to be considered also in relation to the likely capacity of teaching staff and advisers to engage in that reappraisal of the curriculum, development of an improved system of assessment and of appropriate public examinations, and response to changing educational needs which are widely recognised as desirable. The legislation following the Warnock Report and the Government's White Paper on 'Special Needs in Education' is an immediate claimant. A few authorities are particularly well disposed to plan ahead to meet current difficulties and new needs and it is disturbing that recent adjustments of financial policy, by their timing and scale, risk undermining these intentions. It has also to be recognised that planning has implications for administrative costs and staffing in both authorities and their institutions."
  I have quoted that because it relates to a brief cross-examination in Select Committee on in-service training. If the Government are to burden the education system with a statement or curriculum change, which is possibly due later this month, how will it be possible to have any curriculum adjustment which does not include in-service training? That is the area where authorities are reducing substantially, as the report states. Paragraph 21 says that reductions in in-service training have occurred in three ways: secondments are down, financial assistance with expenses for teachers are down, and the result of that has been that the in-service programme has been reduced by nearly one-fifth. How is it possible in a situation of curriculum change to have that sort of change without in-service training? Miss Browne confirmed that in exchanges which we had in Committee.

  485
  I have concentrated on the issues which affect school education. I shall also mention the reduction in adult education. I shall not deal at length with that issue, because other hon. Members have mentioned it, including my hon. Friend, the Member for Preston, South (Mr. Thorne). I should like to deal with the question of descretionary grants. In paragraph 85 the report states:
  "under half of the authorities are showing a decrease in expenditure on discretionary grants."
  That is happening in a number of ways. We are told that 22 authorities are recorded as operating selection processes on the criteria that some disciplines are"acceptable" and that some are"unacceptable". That is extremely distressing, because there will be a tendency to discriminate against cerain courses and subject areas. As always in discretionary grants, there is discrimination against the part-time student and the resulting fall-back in access by women students', part-time students and working class students into adult and continuing education.
  Paragraph 73 raises the issues of youth and community services. We are told that 27 authorities have reduced the allocations to the youth and community services. That again is a contradiction of the policies resulting from the Government's public expenditure cuts. There is massive youth unemployment. For example, one in three young persons in Powis in Mid-Wales is unemployed. The figure for the black population is higher in the inner cities. At the same time as we have massive youth unemployment there are temporary programmes funded by the MSC and a reduction in the provision of youth services. That is illogical. One would have thought that at a time of increasingly massive youth unemployment the alienation which the supporters of capital on the Government Benches are creating in their economic system would be enough of a symptom for them to try to respond to it by an expansion of the youth service. However, that service must be sacrificed. They will suffer the results of their contradictions as the tension and alienation among young people, particularly among young members of minority groups, will increase and show much more resistance than we have seen so far.
  My final point concerns the non-existent Welsh report and the great saga about it. In the Western Mail, which is always a reliable newspaper, we were told on 24 February that there were no plans for a study for Wales similar to the one which was discussed for England. The Welsh Office spokesperson said that that was not considered necessary because of the difference in scale. He said:
  "In England a formal study may have been the only way to tackle this … but in Wales, because of its small size with only eight counties HMIs spend considerably more time in contact with schools and local education authorities.
  They are therefore more able to keep abreast of the situation without looking specifically at this issue."
  However, marvellously and miraculously, by Welsh questions last Monday, the Under-Secretary of State for the Welsh Office had been able to find a report. He told me in answer to an oral question that he expected to have a report from the inspectorate and that he would make it available as soon as was practicable. Undaunted, the Welsh Office spokesman said that the two statements were not contradictory. He said:
  "The point of our original statement was that we have not embarked on the full-scale survey involving questionnaires and extensive tables, as in England."
  486
  I understand that the survey is to be published at the end of next week. No doubt the survey for Wales will be worse than that for England. The national average in education in Wales is worse than in England. It is a myth that the education service in Wales is fantastic and that we are a highly educated people.
  A recent study showed that 27 per cent. of school leavers in Wales have neither O-level or CSE passes. The figure for England is only 14·2 per cent. The system in Wales is already producing a lower level of achievement than in England. Despite that, we are experiencing massive cuts. In Mid-Glamorgan, there is a cut of 250 jobs and a cutback in library services and in-service training. In West Glamorgan, there is a 25 per cent. reduction in cleaning jobs, with 750 jobs threatened. Britain's meanest council is the education authority of Gwent, as I am sure the hon. Member for Bedwellty will confirm. It is bottom of the league table in primary school spending on equipment, at only £9 per head, compared with the United Kingdom average of £15. The ILEA figure is nearly three times as much.
  In Clwyd, part of which county I represent, there is a 50 per cent. drop in the take-up of free school meals. A survey has been carried out by the parents concerning cuts in education, which no doubt will be confirmed by the inspectorate. I shall not quote all the figures because of the time. However, 79 per cent. of the schools suffer from difficulty in acquiring necessary building and repair, and 50 per cent. were in poor repair or inadequately housed. About 93 per cent. of head teachers have difficulty with requests for furniture and fitments. About 55 per cent. are cutting back on swimming lessons.
  Up to £3,000 has been raised by PTAs but the report states:
  "It was again strongly emphasised that fund-raising is very difficult in areas where the parental unemployment is high, a situation which will be exacerbated by the closure of Shotton steel works."
  There has also been a loss of technician services and resource assistants in about 30 per cent. of the schools. The informal survey from the parents point to what is likely to emerge from the formal survey.
  In Gwynedd we have had what appears to have been the most cruel cuts in services for dyslectic pupils. Later tonight we are to have an Adjournment debate on that subject. A referral service was designed in collaboration with the University College of North Wales, Bangor, which, before the 1979 cuts, involved a contribution of £14,000 from the local authority. It was halved to £7,000. In that period, it cost approximately £200 per child per year. Because of the cut by the local education authority, the number of pupils able to take advantage of the specialist university service in Gwynedd dropped from 75 in 1977 to 60 in 1978. In 1979 it was only 22. I condemned the local education authority for the reduction, and I understand that it intends partly to restore it.
  It is typically the pupils most in need of education provision who are being hit by the Government's policies. We can not and will not forgive them for that.
  8.22 pm
  Mr. Tony Speller: I wish to speak principally to the amendment where it refers to the need to restrain public expenditure and expresses
  "confidence in the ability of the education service … to secure maximum educational value from the extensive resources"
  that are still being applied.

  487
  My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) spoke as a schoolmaster. He took umbrage at sociologists. Coming from a family of schoolteachers and being a sociologist, I found it necessary to become chairman of a local education authority to exert any influence.
  It is sad that while we talk through the report—and a valuable and interesting report it is—no one as yet, except for my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend (Mr. Brinton), has dealt with what will happen to our young people in the coming years. I come from a part of the world—and I follow my hon. Friend in being somewhat parochial—where the number of young people is falling dramatically. At the end of this decade, in Devonshire we shall have 2.5 per cent. fewer young people at school, but we shall have at least 25 per cent. more elderly people. Resources must be spread where the need is greatest. Resources are vital for education, but other people and other services need to be catered for.
  I share the regret of my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) at the fact that there are no Liberals or Social Democrats in the Chamber today or at any time. In the county of Devon there has been a well-orchestrated campaign of denigration of the education service, based entirely on the cuts, cuts, cuts campaign. Yet that is not so, and I suspect that it is not so in many counties, bearing in mind the number of children that have to be educated.
  For what it is worth, Professor Clegg made a mistake of 4 per cent. which costs the county of Devon £2 million. As an example of salary increases, which I do not begrudge for a moment, the headmaster of a middle school, teaching 800 to 850 young people, will now get £15,000 a year, as opposed to £10,000 two years ago. I do not say that these payments are not justified, but they have to be paid from limited resources. One should look at how good authorities manage to survive, and not fall in love with league tables.
  Everyone talks about league tables as though pupil-teacher ratios are the only things that matter. People talk about the amounts spent per head as though they are the only things that matter. They may be important as a base line, but I suspect that they have little more importance than that.
  I apologise for being parochial, but in the county of Devon we have not sacked one teacher. We have not closed any village schools for economic reasons. We are keeping village schools open. Yet our resources are limited. This year, 10 per cent. was saved on education administration costs, and more will be saved in the coming year.
  When I was chairman of a local education authority, we had the annual plateau. We all knew the plateau. When it came to estimates time, we took last year's plateau, added X per cent. for inflation and X per cent. for growth. No one ever queried whether it was a solid plateau or whether it was honeycombed with waste space which could have been used for more important matters.
  To my pleasure—and somewhat to my surprise—throughout the country rate rises in the shires are far less than might have been expected. The same is true for rate rises in district councils. I suspect that the reason lies very largely in the economies that are being made in all services, including education.
  488
  I am sure that we have a major problem with cutbacks. If pupil rolls are falling, there are fewer people on whom to spend the money.
  I finish on my parochial note. Of all the counties. Devon is one from the top in the A-level, O-level and CSE grade I passes. But that was a poor position in the league table. Perhaps the league table for examination passes is more important to the parents than the league table for expenditure. We are a leading authority in getting young school leavers into work experience. We are leading in nursery experience and in nursery activities.
  My thought in reading the original motion was that we have a problem, but we have to accept the cuts with bitterness and sorrow and look forward to better times. I believe that the education service has taken the cuts and is making good use of the opportunity to be more economical than in the past. I do not believe for one moment that the education service in toto will suffer. However, I speak parochially, knowing that we have a good education service that is attacked irrationally and wrongly and, frankly, with more interest in theatrical effect than in verity by folk who have not bothered to attend this debate, despite their long and strong attacks on all Conservative education authorities.
  I support the amendment. It makes good and sound sense, and I believe that it will work.
  8.29 pm
  Mr. Dan Jones: I have some poignant remarks to make and, because I know myself so well, I have written them down because I am aware that other Members wish to speak and I want to be precise.
  The Minister began his speech by saying that we can spend only what we can afford. As one who, in his early days, was bred in poverty, I accept that philsophy. As a consequence, I cannot understand how the Minister can say that when, at this moment, we are spending £11,000 million on defence, £9,000 million on unemployed people and £5,000 million agreed to on Monday last. That is the first point.
  There are those better informed than myself who believe that we can spend twice that sum of money and not preserve peace while we spend on arms. I make that point very genuinely.
  Over the years, from my reading of men much more eminent than myself, I have calculated that this will represent a situation that will never result in peace, that, sooner or later, undoubtedly it will mean that we are in a position in which there will be no victim, nor a vanquished, but a strong possibility of the vanquishing of the human race.
  If the Under-Secretary wishes to take it on board, I recommend to him the wisdom of a military mind infinitely greater than mine will ever be. Let him read what General Sir John Hackett has stated about civil defence. This man has been a particularly successful soldier in international war. His statement is this:
  "There will be no victor. There will be no vanquished. But in the years to come, unless we stop, there will be a vanquished."
  I always ask myself—who are the greatest sufferers? I believe that the greatest sufferers will undoubtedly be the most innocent of the human race—our children. I do not have children now. They have grown up. They have been to university. But they have brought children into the

  489
  world—and I love them. These innocent people could be the victims of the expenditure which could otherwise be used to develop education to a greater level.
  I make a simple but very sincere recommendation to the Minister. If the present Government really want to establish a basis for peace, they should take the advice of Sir Derek Rayner, who has been their economic adviser, on the economy; and let them take Sir John Hackett's advice on peace and war. I have a perfect moral right to say that to the Minister. I do not know—and I do not want to know—what advice Sir Derek has given the Cabinet, but it has not been successful. Indeed, if Sir John Hackett were to advise the Cabinet, I am prepared to swear that his advice would be infinitely more valuable and certainly infinitely more correct and for the benefit of humanity.
  8.33 pm
  Mr. John Carlisle: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Jones), who always speaks with such passion and who was, I remember, so kind to me when I made my maiden speech, albeit that his subject matter was not entirely akin to what we are now discussing.
  Any governing party should welcome discussion of a report such as this, however it came to be presented to the House. Conservative Members are not ashamed of what we have done in education terms. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Devon, North (Mr. Speller), I shall be a little parochial in what I say, because I, too, am very proud of what my county, Bedfordshire, has done over the last 12 rather difficult months that the country, and certainly my county, has suffered.
  This is a debate about the enhancement of education standards. Lyrical though the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) was, I thought that he fell into the terrible trap of describing the report as alarming, malicious and possibly even disastrous. I suggest that his own contribution fell into that category. The scaremongering that he and the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) indulged in will be received with a certain amount of shame by those who have been listening to the debate.
  Many of us might well say that we would not have started from here. Many hon. Members on this side regret very much the demise of grammar schools and the grammar school system. There are several who long again for streaming and for the ability and all the different assets of individual pupils to be recognised by a system that has failed the nation's pupils. It is not for us to look back but forward. I am practical enough, and so is my county, to realise that we cannot change the system.
  I also must lament that teaching standards have dropped since the introduction of comprehensive education. I do not entirely blame the teachers. I tend to blame the system. We talk about mixed-ability classes. Teachers have had to cope, although this may be beyond the training that they have been given. I wonder if the spectrum has become too wide and so standards have been lowered.
  As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State—the Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson)—said not so long ago, if one looks back in terms of examination results at what has happened over the last 10 years, all those involved in education should feel some shame that the proportion of passes in O levels and A levels has not
  490
  inproved, despite the fact that the pupil-teacher ratio is better by some 20 per cent. than it was 10 years ago, despite the fact that schools have much better facilities and despite the fact that the leaving age has been raised. Schools have had many new buildings and facilities such as language laboratories, yet we have not progressed over the last 10 years.
  We have not heard yet from those on the long, green empty benches opposite what their plans for education would cost if they came back into government, which God forbid. I hope that we shall be given some idea in the wind-up speech on behalf of the Opposition. As the hon. Member for Preston, South (Mr. Thome) said, we should be given a figure so that the people of the country will have an idea of what the cost would be.
  No one can deny that sacrifices are being made. Those sacrifices are not perhaps for the generation of pupils who are now going through the system but for the many generations which will follow them. It would be folly and a disgrace if we did not take that into account. As the Secretary of State said, we must live within our means. It is very easy to increase expenditure; we know how those in local government on the other side can do that. But it is difficult and often unpopular to reduce expenditure. I give credit to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State and his team for courageously putting forward the cuts which are absolutely necessary. They have to take into account the balance of interest.
  Only yesterday there were 5,000 pensioners here with legitimate claims for a greater share of the national cake. The widows are coming later this month. It is the International Year of Disabled People. There are single-parent families to be considered. Everybody wants something extra and all think that they have a legitimate claim. Everyone is entitled to put his case. If we spend more than we have been earning, as we have done in this country, then it is future generations who will suffer. This is what this debate should be about.
  Nobody should deny that economies can be made in any form of education service. It would be hard to find any authority which could not make further economies, even after the present cuts, whatever implications they might have.
  Predictably, the hon. Member for Bedwellty pulls a face. He must accept that there is a responsibility on every hon. Member. We are in a world recession, which means that the implications must cut across the whole spectrum of Government spending. I see no shame in our constantly reviewing the way in which we spend our money. Private sector businesses have been forced to do that since the world recession became apparent, and they will have to continue to do so. It is right that we should look at our books in the same way.
  Every household in the country has a budget to which it must keep. The Opposition have been totally irresponsible in the way in which they have conducted the debate. It has been done on the basis that the money will be found from somewhere. There is no shame in living within our means. That is the only way in which we can guarantee our future.
  The National Union of Teachers has been among the loudest voices which have objected to the cuts. The NUT is doing an extreme disservice to many of its members who are rather fed up with the path which their leadership is following.

  491
  Indeed, the pupil-teacher ratio has not changed. In Bedfordshire, it has slightly improved, despite the cuts that have been made. The Opposition argue that falling rolls are some sort of bonus. If so, it is right that we should use it. I cannot see the point in appointing more teachers if class numbers are falling. That way lies folly.
  As the report points out, there have been no forced redundancies. Certainly, there were no forced redundancies in my own county, where natural wastage has reduced the numbers. In effect, the private business sector has been forced to discipline itself in exactly the same way that we are now being forced to do with regard to teaching.
  Let no one suggest that the recent teacher's pay settlement, which has received some praise from both sides of the House, is anything like 7½ per cent. Thanks to Professor Clegg and his mistake, the real rise is something over 10 per cent. Many of my constituents are on a one-day week or on short time or have lost their jobs. They do not take kindly to those in the teachers' unions who say that the 7½ per cent. rise is totally inadequate for their needs.
  Cuts have inevitably affected equipment. I certainly welcome that. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough is a former headmaster. It is an occupation which some Conservative Members hope he will resume after the next election. A headmaster in my county complained to the leader of the authority that he was being bled dry, yet that very week a £½ million expansion remodelling scheme commenced in his school. I wonder what sort of world he lives in.
  As the report points out, in per capita terms nine-tenths of schools were satisfactory. Indeed, my own county has maintained its per capita spending.
  A lot has also been said about books. I suppose that that is understandable. That is a sacred cow in the eyes of the hon. Member for Bedwellty, but we all know the sort of mistakes that he made some time ago with regard to that subject. What is wrong with using second-hand books? The private sector has used second-hand books for years. They are old books that have been passed down from one generation to another. I do not see any amusement in that. Labour Members think that equipment must always be new, whatever the cost. That is the way in which they are acting. I would suggest that possibly there has been an embarrassment of riches in some schools, that they have been carpeted and curtained completely beyond their means and in no way in keeping with the sort of education we are trying to revive.
  I want to say a few words about parental contribution, which has been talked about tonight, and particularly about paragraphs 37 and 38. There is, I would suggest, enormous scope here for a great deal more parental contribution. I was certainly very sad to read the judgment, which could of course have far-reaching effects, about the music lessons and the contribution which parents can make and in some cases are very willing to make to assist in the education of the child. I wonder if we are not now in a position in which those who wish to learn to play a musical instrument of a particular sort should not make some sort of contribution, when other children are not seeking that service. My hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer) said, quite rightly, that we are now running the risk that, because of lack of money, these lessons will not be available whether or not the parents are willing to pay. This particular judgment
  492
  will have very far-reaching effects and I am certainly heartened that the Secretary of State is going to look at the whole matter again.
  Parents are extremely anxious to help. Village schools have been kept open and my hon. Friend the Member for Eye (Mr. Gumrner) recently had great success in keeping a village school open because of the co-operation of the parents. In this connection there is enormous scope for parents to make their own contribution towards keeping schools open, and I think they are proud to do so and are sick and tired of some of the trade union blusterings about this.
  I was also heartened by the action of my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Neale), who brought in a Ten-minute Bill last July on this very subject. Parents are helping in my own county on the basis that the county will provide the materials and the parents will help with the building. I see nothing at all wrong with self-help and I think this is an area in which we could develop in quite a big way.
  I want to make one short comment in connection with my own constituency—and I see that the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Thomas) has just left the Chamber—as far as the immigrant and ethnic population is concerned. He is quite right to say that in certain areas there are certain needs. 1 have schools in my constituency where 90 per cent. of the intake are of ethnic origin and probably about half of them cannot speak English. Even there some contribution can be made, and indeed is willingly made, by the ethnic communities themselves in the provision of an extra teacher.
  The basic contention of this report, and certainly of the education in my own county, is that we have retained, and I believe will continue to retain, the basic core curriculum of our system. I think the very exercise of cutting expenditure has been healthy. It has been healthy in my own county, and indeed the vice-chairman of the education committee said to me only yesterday that now the system is very much better and fitter than it was. We are more cost conscious and it is quite right that there are responsible people on this side of the House and in the Government who have the reins of education in their hands. I believe that, because of this exercise, the future looks rather brighter for education. We should not be afraid of braving what is and will probably continue to be a fairly cold wind of recession because the sunshine that will come for those future generations, which is what we should be talking about tonight, will be well earned.
  8.49 pm
  Mr. Tom Pendry: I had not intended to speak in this debate until I heard the Minister reply to the opening speech, which was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock). He did this so unconvincingly and sounded so thin that I thought I should intervene and place on record one very narrow but very important point, or possibly two such points. Before I do so, however, I must declare an interest. I am a sponsored member of the National Union of Public Employees, a union which has been very badly hit as a result of the policies of this Government, not least in education. I am sorry that the Secretary of State is not in his place, because I intend to level a very serious charge at him.
  Throughout the passage of the Education Bill last year the Secretary of State said on many occasions that there

  493
  was no reason to believe that the school meals service would be abolished. He asked his critics, like my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark), if they did not have any faith in the local authorities and whether they were not alarmist in not giving the local authorities the confidence they deserved that they would maintain the school meals service. We can look at the record and see what has happened in a short time.
  Eight hundred jobs have been lost in the school meals service of Dorset county council. About 25,000 school kids under the age of 12 have been deprived of their school meals. Bromley—another Conservative-controlled authority—has done away with 20,000 hot meals for kids. Many jobs have also been lost. Instead, children are offered meals consisting of filled rolls and yogurt. Incidentally, those meals are sold at exorbitant prices. People then wonder why the take-up is so low.
  Earlier, Conservative Members did not seem to understand the price mechanism. Where prices have increased, the take-up has fallen. Conservative Members seemed to think that that was very strange. It is their philosophy and in one sense, it is working. In Lincolnshire, 1,300 jobs have been lost. Thousands and thousands of school meals are not being taken up. Only last week, a deputation from Lincolnshire went to No. 10 Downing Street with a mammoth petition, which demonstrated the concern of parents, teachers and children in that county.
  Gloucestershire was about to take the same action, but, as a result of pressure from parents and teachers, the authority has decided to think again. Let us hope that it will think and act wisely, and that it will not take such action. I understand that Norfolk is on the brink of taking such a decision. Perhaps it too will think again, because enormous pressure is building up.
  The county council elections are coming up. As a result of these policies, there are bound to be some great changes in the shires. We must not be too surprised to hear that all the authorities that I have mentioned are Conservative controlled. Up and down the country Conservative-controlled authorities have raised the price of school meals. As a result, fewer and fewer children are taking them.
  There is one other important point. Most of those who have lost their jobs in the schools meals service will not appear on any register. Those thousands and thousands of women who work in the school meals service will not appear on the unemployment register. They are the hidden unemployed. They are not full-time workers in the accepted sense. However, they do a vital job often in low-wage areas. They need the money as much as other wage earners.
  Many thought that these women earned only pin money. More and more women are in desperate straits as a result of this action. Indeed, this action has been undertaken by a party that went to the country as the party of the family. In the light of such action, that is nonsense. When the Minister replies I hope that he will address himself to those points. In addition, I hope that he will bear in mind that when the incoming Government arrived at Whitehall, the Association of County Councils had a shopping list for them. The first item was school meals. The second item was school transport. We all know what happened about that. In addition, the shopping list
  494
  included the raising of the school entrance age to 6 and the reduction of the school leaving age to 15. Will the Minister tell us whether the lesson has been learnt the hard way?
  I wish to nail for all time the myth that this is not central Government action. It is. It is no good hiding behind the fact that local authorities have taken the decisions. Northern Ireland is a case in point. Direct central Government action has demolished the school meals service in Northern Ireland. It is no good saying that it is somebody else's fault and that the decisions belong to somebody else. It is no good saying that it is somebody else's fault or somebody else's decisions. Central Government are destroying the schools meals service and it is about time that the Secretary of State admitted that he has reneged on his earlier promises to those who said last year that that was what they were doing.
  On a personal note, I am happy to say that Tameside, which has had a lot of stick from the Under-Secretary and others, has the best record in the country with no fall in the take-up of school meals.
  When the school meals service began in the nineteenth century, one contributor to the debate said that the school meals service was vital. I know that my hon. Friend and others have said that there have been very important cuts but they have been no more important than this. The school meals service is vital now, for the reason given by that contributor in the nineteenth century, that it is no good expecting children to attain their best level of educational capability on an empty stomach. That is as true now as it was then. That is why we are so incensed on the Labour Benches.
  I do not know whether the Secretary of State has read the report on nursery schools that was published two weeks ago. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will address himself briefly—if only briefly—to this matter. If he has read the report, he must conclude that he must reconsider his policies for the provision of facilities for the under-flves and reverse them. Perhaps the Under-Secretary will address himself to that, but for the reasons I have stated I shall have no hesitation in joining my colleagues in the appropriate Lobby.
  8.57 pm
  Mr. William Shelton: How pleased I am to see my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) here, with whose speech I very much agreed, especially his remarks about the easing out of unsatisfactory head teachers. It has always seemed to me that if one could conclude some arrangement which was satisfactory, that would do more for education than a 1 per cent. increase in the education budget throughout the country.
  I agreed with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State when he said that this country has a proud record in education. In the last 30 to 40 years, we have increased the share of national wealth devoted to education so that now it is about 5½ per cent. to 6 per cent. Today the pupil-teacher ratio is better than it ever was. The spending per pupil will rise, admittedly because of falling rolls. I guess that the previous HMI reports were similar. I do not know the protocol, but if the Opposition wished they could arrange to have them published, so that the House could view them and decide between them.
  I accept that there is a correlation between expenditure and provision. But how close a correlation is there between expenditure and standards? The House might wish to turn

  495
  its thoughts to the Inner London Education Authority which has by far the highest spending per capita in the country. In a previous HMI report on the Inner London Education Authority, some of the criticisms were far harsher than any of the criticisms in the present report.
  The Inner London Education Authority—the largest education authority in the country, or possibly in the world, as far as I know—has no shortage of funds. Next year, it will spend £600 million. Now that it remains, by decision of the Government, a unitary authority, I suggest that it is time to look at an improvement in the ILEA which has nothing to do with funds. I repeat that I am not convinced of the strict correlation between expenditure and standards.
  My concern about ILEA is that it is so large and remote. It is out of touch with many parents' wishes and it still continues some poor education practices. I do not have time to relate them, but hon. Members can read about them in the previous HMI report.
  We might well look at a greater degree of local democratic control within certain areas of inner London. I suggest the creation in each inner London borough of some sort of education board, whatever one might want to call it—rather like the old school boards, but without the power to precept—appointed by the boroughs, within the boroughs, and also within the divisional areas, which more or less correspond to the boroughs.
  It would be rather like the old exempted area scheme which has been discussed in the past. The divisions would report to the school boards in certain minor areas. It would increase the local contact of education with the people who live in the borough. The cost would be very little. It might even save money, because one could reduce to some extent some of the bureaucracy in the Inner London Education Authority in County Hall.
  What responsibilities might such school boards take over from ILEA? They could take over, for example, decisions on corporal punishment. The House may know that the National Association of Schoolmasters and Union of Women Teachers has just declared an industrial dispute with ILEA because of the latter's decision abruptly to terminate corporal punishment in all its schools.
  I should not like to take sides in that argument—it must be a value judgment—but I would say that it should be left to the board of governors and the teachers of the individual school to decide, and should not be so decided by ILEA. The school board that I have suggested might have that power. It might have power over curriculum, over attitude to parental contributions, over the appointment of headmasters, and over the appointment of governors, rather than having those things decided by ILEA, a remote body in County Hall.
  The criticism that ILEA is too large, too remote, and not responsive enough to local wishes, could be met by this modest suggestion, which would in no way damage the structure of ILEA, and would allow it to remain the unitary authority that so many parents clearly wished it to be. It would be an addition to local democracy in education in inner London. It would help to improve standards, although not perhaps as much as the suggestion, which I heartily support, that headmasters should be on renewable contracts.
  I criticise the Opposition for having shown once again an exclusive concern over funds, without accepling—as I
  496
  believe one must—that there is much more to good education than the amount that is spent on it. That is why I support the amendment.
  9.3 pm
  Miss Joan Lestor: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for not being here at the beginning of the debate. I am a member of two minority groups in this House—I am a woman and I am also a mother. It is because I am a mother—and also because of my concern with my child's education—that I missed the beginning of the debate.
  In the short time that is available to me, I must try to nail one or two of the preposterous statements made by Conservative Members this evening. There was reference to the evidence given to the Select Committee concerning O-level and A-level results, the standard of which, we were told, was falling in comprehensive schools. The position, of course, is exactly the opposite: they have been rising. I do not make the point as evidence of a tremendously high measure of success in education, but one must contradict the statement made from the Conservative Benches that in comprehensive schools the standard of O-level and A-level successes has been falling.
  A good deal has been said about the provision of books, in-service training, the number of teachers, and so forth. Conservative Members seem to be unable to grasp the point that if the position in half the ILEA schools is satisfactory, it means that the position in the other half is not satisfactory—in, for example, the provision of books. Whether one can make statements about standards of education, and about the provision and resources in areas being satisfactory, depends a very great deal on which areas one is talking about.
  There has been no examination of different areas and different requirements in certain areas. Hon. Members have made great play with the pupil-teacher ratio. I accept that the ratio is not getting worse and that, in some areas, it has improved. It depends upon the area with which one is dealing. It depends also on the size of class. Anyone who has taught in a school will say that there is a great difference between the pupil-teacher ratio and the size of class that may face a teacher at any one time.
  The pupil-teacher ratio in both the comprehensive schools that my children attend is a great deal better than the size of class that confronts the teacher every morning. This point never seems to be accepted by people who make this claim about the pupil-teacher ratio. I recall the time when the right hon. Lady, now in the Council for Social Democracy, or whatever it calls itself, was Secretary of State for Education and the hon. Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson), who is to wind up the debate, and his right on Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas), who is now no longer a member of the Front Bench, were going around the country talking about falling standards in education. I remember the onslaught that the hon. Gentleman made on the Labour Government about falling standards and how he and I crossed swords in debate and argument. Yet, in less than two years, the Government now try to tell us that things have improved so dramatically that we can engage in all these cuts. After talking about falling standards and their effect in undermining the confidence of many teachers, things, according to some Conservative Members, are now apparently so good—some said that things were bad—that we can engage in drastic cuts in education. I would have

  497
  thought most parents believed that there would be a greater injection of money into education, following the great debate on education that took place all over the country, not that money would be taken away from it.
  The hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) whose speech surprised me, because he knows something about education, may say that my party cut education. It is true that it cut education. That is why I resigned from the Government. I am, therefore, in a strong position to say that when Governments involve themselves in cuts in education they are cutting back on the future needs of the country which will, at the end of the day, cost them much more. I do not defend the Labour Government. They were wrong. That is why I resigned. I have perhaps displayed a little more honesty in my attitude to what my Government did than is shown by many Conservative Members who disagree with what their Government are doing but stand up and defend them or have not the courage to resign.
  The Prime Minister was the architect of a White Paper on pre-school education and nursery education. We were given to believe that, under a Tory Government, there would be an expansion of nursery education. I have looked at what the report says about nursery education. The difference between the number of children going into nursery classes and the number of children going into primary schools before the age of 5 roughly balances out. There has been a slight increase. We were led to believe, however, that we were to get an expansion in nursery school education provision for the under-fives. That has not happened. People were misled.
  The idea that parents should be called upon to make a contribution to education has been defended. It is argued that this will make parents interested in education and that we should no longer expect our children to be educated by right in the State system. I am sure that some Conservative Members who spoke about the State system do not have their children in the State system as I have. I have no objection to helping in raffles and making a contribution. I object, however, to being told that the basic provision in education promised in every Education Act and every change in education since 1944 should now be financed by parents.
  We have 2½ million unemployed—a figure, that, according to the economists, will rise to 3 million. If we are to involve ourselves in the principle of parental contribution, the balance of resources and the balance of input into education will rest on those areas of the country where there is more employment than in other areas. Once again, the children who will be denied education opportunities are those in the poorest areas, in areas where parents can no longer afford to make a contribution.
  It costs £8,500 to train a teacher. That is an input of public expenditure. We are paying hundreds of teachers not to teach. When Conservative Members say that we cannot afford to invest in education, they are wasting the investment that has been made by the taxpayer in training teachers and subsequently paying them to be unemployed and not to contribute to education.
  9.10 pm
  Mr. Phillip Whitehead: It is a great pleasure to be able to take up the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Miss Lestor). She
  498
  reminds us all that the process of cut and come again did not begin in May 1979 and that the arguments of principle about that approach developed from 1976 onwards. My hon. Friend was one of those who sacrificed her position in the then Government precisely on the issue of education.
  As my hon. Friend has said, I wish that some Conservative Members would see their role as guardians of education first and not as participants in the great debate between the guardians of public expenditure on the one hand and the advocates of investment in youth and the future on the other.
  During the latter part of this interesting debate we have seen rather too much of the more carnivorous face of Toryism. The hon. Member for Luton, West (Mr. Carlisle) declaimed at great length about the needless waste that he thinks still exists in the education system. Those of his constituents who are now working a one-day week as a result of the Government's policies will not be happy to be told that they must contribute on a parental basis to the education of their children.
  There have been high passions engendered on both sides of the Chamber in this debate and there is a clear division of principle between us. It separates those who say that everything save defence and law and order should be subject to rigorous and continuing public expenditure cuts and those who say that there comes a stage when the quality of education and education standards generally are seriously and perhaps permanently damaged.
  I wonder how many hon. Members read a document entitled"Manifesto for Change" that was published in The Times Educational Supplement of 30 January. It was signed by some distinguished people, including the father of the 1944 Act, Lord Butler of Saffron Walden and the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway), who participated in the debate. The hon. Gentleman may have forgotten that he signed the document. The manifesto stated:
  "Saving money by reducing teaching personnel to a point when schools can no longer be effective as civilised and civilising communities is self-defeating.
  The schools, if structured and staffed to develop the personal powers and resources of the young, could make a tremendous contribution to raising the quality of society, saving thereby not only hosts of human beings from inept, futile lives, but huge sums of wasted money."
  That goes to the heart of the matter. We are talking not about moneys that can be saved and moneys that should be expended but whether expenditure on education and the national investment involved is not in the end saving money for British industry, which needs a trained work force, as the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Thomas) and others have said, and improving our quality of life.
  When I read the HMI report, which is the principal subject of the debate, I do not see a picture of wholesale, total and catastrophic decline. The Secretary of State for Education and Science did my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) a disservice when he tried to suggest that he had launched that sort of attack.
  The Opposition have said that the report contains conclusive evidence that in certain areas and sectors there are already unmistakable signs of education being provided on the cheap. We have said that these are merely warning signs of the position that will develop over the next few years. Many of the authorities concerned, which have been scrutinised by the inspectorate, are subject not merely to the exhortations of the right hon. and learned

  499
  Gentleman and his Department but to the rigours and iron grip of the rate support grant as calculated by the Secretary of State for the Environment. In a negative sense, it is he who is running education in this country today—or perhaps I should say running it down. I shall return to that point in a moment.
  I echo hon. Members on both sides who have paid tribute to the inspectorate. Long may the independence of the inspectorate—not merely from the Secretary of State and his successors of any party, but from any other outside agency—be preserved. Long may we have an inspectorate that can produce such forthright answers to the Select Committee as the present one did the other day. It is not correct to say, as some have said, that Sheila Browne could give no evidence that schools were breaking the law. She said, in effect—my hon. Friend will correct me if I am wrong—that we should not ask her who was breaking the law. We would have to ask the Secretary of State.
  One of the problems in the debate has been that all of us have asked the Secretary of State a great many questions, but the Secretary of State, in effect, has said that instead of asking him those questions we should be saying what a fantastic hero he is for having published the report in the first place. We have given due credit to him for that, and I hope that Governments will do the same in the future. I personally have no objection to the previous reports being published, including those relating to the period of the Labour Government. We could then form a balanced judgment on these matters as time evolves. But it is quite wrong to say that that is more important than the consideration of the precise reports on the state of primary and secondary schools and advanced and further education in this country.
  It is also wrong to say that the Opposition made a great deal of fuss about the pupil-teacher ratio. As it happened, we did not. We broadly accept that it is now much as it was last year and that it may well be much the same next year. This debate is about standards. The Under-Secretary of State who is to reply said in an Adjournment debate on 29 January that the pupil-teacher ratio bore no relationship to the testing of standards in our schools. I think that that is broadly correct. Schools with good pupil-teacher ratios may have other things wrong with them, and vice versa. I accept that. I hope that the Secretary of State will therefore not feel that we were trying to single out the pupil-teacher ratio in the report.
  We have tried to single out in the report the areas that have suffered most as a result of the policies of the last few years. I do not draw the line entirely at May 1979, but I certainly believe that those policies have been intensified and that there has been a sea change in recent years, even though not entirely brought about by the Secretary of State and his Department.
  What has suffered most? First, the curriculum has suffered. Secondly, all forms of special teaching have suffered. Thirdly, the provision of books and equipment has suffered, and because of that, any attempt to initiate new forms of teaching as well as to maintain those forms of teaching that we already have in our primary and secondary schools has also suffered. Fourthly, the fabric of the institutions themselves has been shown in many cases to be damaged, sometimes almost beyond repair. Beyond all that, however, and subsumed in it, as Sheila Browne said when she came before the Select Committee, is the strain upon teachers themselves. She singled that out as the major factor, and my right hon. Friend the Member
  500
  for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) and many others have pointed to it as one of the major problems affecting the service and revealed in the report.
  I listened to the whole of the Secretary of State's speech to see when he would address himself to the precise paragraphs to which my hon. Friend had drawn attention. We wanted to know what the Secretary of State felt about the problems caused by withdrawal of remedial teachers. We wanted to know what he felt about the references in the report to the great problems now faced equally by children with learning difficulties and by gifted children, because they cannot be withdrawn from classes and given special alternative teaching. Their education can therefore be shown to be suffering. That is the conclusion of the report. When I intervened to ask about that, the Secretary of State said that he could not deal with everything. He said that it was regrettable and then moved on. He then gave some more global figures from which, if one takes the right base line, one can always argue any case in any way.
  We are saying that schools are showing such a deterioration in standards—I challenge the Secretary of State not to accept that—that not only is the matter one of urgency in the House, but it is increasingly becoming a matter that parents are taking into their own hands. That is the missing element in the debate so far, namely, the reaction of citizen power to what is taking place in the State school system.
  Hon. Members have been deluged with letters from teachers' associations, parent-teacher associations, and various pressure groups up and down the country about the background flushed out by the report. The Cheshire Federation of PTAs has written to say about the report:
  "we are amazed how accurately it describes many of the problems either now being or soon to be experienced in our Cheshire schools."
  The Warwickshire PTA wrote to say:
  "Remedial work has largely disappeared from a number of schools both junior and secondary … Much less help is given in the 3Rs."
  Those are the cherished three Rs at the heart of the curriculum advocated by the Secretary of State and his party.
  We heard from another parent-teacher association at St. Albans. It said:
  "The worst single effect of staffing economies has been on remedial teaching. Nine of the 29 primary schools reported that they have already lost hours for part-time teachers. Since these teachers usually take small groups for remedial work, pupils most in need of individual help are getting less of it."
  I am sorry to rub the Secretary of State's nose in it, but that is the heart of the report. When I talk of nine schools out of 29 in St. Albans—or whatever the figures are in the many other letters that I can quote—I do not want to hear the Secretary of State say"What about the other 20? Is it not fantastic that they are still providing remedial teaching?"I say, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty when he opened the debate, that anyone who has a child needing remedial care in one of the nine schools would not think it satisfactory to be fobbed off in that way.
  The same is true in relation to paragraphs 28 and 29 of the report on per capita funding—the amount of money spent on books. For some years there has been a chronic fall in the number of books purchased for our schools. The hon. Member for Luton, West said that it was terrific to use second-hand books. He said the older the books the better. That is an antiquarian theory of education. Textbooks that show large parts of the world still painted

  501
  in red and geography books that show the North Sea not with oil wells but as a prime source of European fisheries, teach the children rather badly. I put it as mildly as that. I ask the hon. Gentleman, in all innocence, to consider that he may be mistaken in his enthusiasm for the second-hand book trade.
  Paragraph 33 of the report deals with the fabric of the buildings. The inspectors say:
  "Observations on the state of premises were received on 980 schools. Of these, nearly 300 were described as poor. They included schools in both urban and rural areas, proportionately fewer in the London boroughs but about equally divided between Shire counties and the Metropolitan districts."
  In a newspaper article the Secretary of State is quoted as saying not only about that, but about the report in general and the difficulties caused by the reduction in expenditure:
  "this does not mean that the fabric of education is disintegrating or is about to disintegrate …in many places the quality of service continues to be satisactory."
  Supposing there is a school that is as unsatisfactory as those mentioned, but not named, in the report. Is it good enough to say that the fabric is not disintegrating? In the most literal and physical sense, it is. What would one think of a building inspector who looked at a building and said that it had large external cracks held together by bolts and shafts here and there but that one or two rooms could still be used? He could say that until the very day that the building fell down. It would be a rash inspector who passed that building. The HMI does not make that mistake. It says that the fabric of the buildings in many cases is not satisfactory. Those of us who have taught and who are parents with children in the State system can bear witness to the fact that that is an increasing problem in schools today. I wish that the Secretary of State would occasionally acknowledge the extent of the problem as it is now developing.
  The main point which Opposition Members have tried to urge today is that it is fundamentally wrong in principle to make parents anywhere into unpaid, forced tax collectors for the present Prime Minister. I play as large a part as I can for my family—I hope that all right hon. and hon. Members do the same in their local PTAs. I want to see an enormous enthusiasm for the schools to sustain them. However, I do not believe that basic equipment should be provided by parents, that charges should be levied and that anything should prevent the right of access to education carefully written into the 1944 Act by those who drafted it, and for whom it has endured so long. We face that great danger now. We have had one or two examples of precisely that difficulty.
  The Northamptonshire association of parents has written to the Secretary of State saying that the children's education is being irreparably damaged and asking him to intervene within his power, to provide efficient education. He may have had the report from East Sussex, saying that it has run out of polyfilla and that the cracks are showing. About 40 per cent. of the schools replying to the survey by the East Sussex branch of CASE had had to use their PTAs for the first time, to provide library books and textbooks, maths and science equipment and arts and crafts materials. When one reaches the point when an organisation says that only with increasing financial help from parents can it get by, one is led to the conclusion which it draws in its letter, which is that the gaps between rich and poorer schools in resources and ultimately in
  502
  education opportunities is inevitably getting wider. If he looks through the report, the Secretary of State will see that sentence—a little reformulated perhaps—in the HMI's conclusion also. That is the worst of the charging principle. It will widen the gap between the schools which can provide this sort of service and back up because a large number of wealthy parents are prepared to give the back up, and those schools in areas which are disadvantaged, where that back up will not be possible and the gap will widen further.
  It is stated in a report referring to the Ellis School in Leicester that:
  "Parents pay £25 for essentials at cash-starved 'free' schools."
  Individual parental contributions are now working out at £34 a head in one school in Warwickshire, while in another school nearby they are only £1·50. This is an example of that widening distinction.
  Worst of all, in Kent, that notorious education establishment, there is now the beginning of the attempt to charge for examinations, although it is only a deposit at the moment. The school is saying that a tenner must be put down by the parent, or else the pupil will not be able to take the examination. If that becomes more widespread in the wake of the pressures of the rate support grant under which local authorities are now struggling, what will happen if the parent challenges that and sends his child to school regardless, and submits him for the examination? Will the Secretary of State say in ringing tones that that is right and that every child has a right of access to any public examination without payment of any fee, deposit or whatever? He must do that if he is to stand by public sector education.
  I was curious about the way that the Secretary of State replied to the intervention from his hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer), who raised the question of the Pershore schoolteacher and the Hereford and Worcestershire case. I was not clear exactly what he is implying. Is he saying that he will intervene in a case like that to change the 1944 Act so that it shall become legal, as it has now been shown in the courts not to be, to charge for music lessons, or is he saying, as he ought to, that he should intervene in such cases to make sure that the provisions clearly written into the 1944 Act are held to give that right of access to the children in those schools? It is the Secretary of State ultimately who is the guardian. He has a positive power and not merely a negative power under the 1944 Act. If he does not use that power, no one else can.
  When Sheila Browne was before the Select Committee and was asked about LEAs that might be breaking the law, her answer was"Go back and ask the Secretary of State". We are asking the Secretary of State tonight to give us an indication of what he will do when the matter is tested once more in the courts, as I believe that it will be, not just once but many times. I say that because of the inflamed citizen opinion that is beginning to intervene in the decline of our educational system.
  When I look at the number of cases that have so far come up of parents being asked to pay for at least a part of their children's education and who are seeing this increasingly treated not as a nominally voluntary contribution but as a levy, I believe that those parents, if they have any sense, will not stand for that nonsense. They know what their rights were intended to be under the 1944 Act, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) said. Nor will they stand—and I warn the

  503
  Secretary of State of this—for any nonsense about the attempt to reform the 1944 Act in such a way as to allow LEAs in the future to make charges. The fact is, as I said a moment ago, that local education authorities today are forced to make many cuts that they would not wish to make because of the way in which grant-related expenditure, with its thresholds and penalties, is being imposed on them as a kind of procrustean assessment.
  Everyone knows that there is not a flat average by which one can make grant-related expenditure right across the country in that way. When a local education authority has to bear that burden, we should not say that we do not understand the reason why sometimes it turns upon precisely the areas of education that should be expanded. As those hon. Members have said who have dealt with the question of adult education, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Preston. South (Mr. Thome) said in a very moving speech, it is exactly that area, in the teeth of the recesion, that we should be expanding. It is precisely that area where the LEA is not enabled to give assistance. In fact, quite the reverse, as we have seen with many of the cuts that have been made because of the pressures of the Secretary of State for the Environment.
  If cuts are to be made that will in some cases force local authorities to keep their expenditure 5·6 per cent, or more below the 1978 or 1979 levels, we would expect that the effect on some areas of education, and particularly further and adult education, will be cuts and more cuts. By the time that this Government have ran their miserable course, there will hardly be any adult and further education left outside of the area—
  Mr. Rhodes James: Rubbish.
  Mr. Whitehead: The hon. Gentleman should listen to the remainder of my sentence. There will hardly be any advanced and non-advanced further education left outside of the area that is to be brought under the control, if he has his way, of the Secretary of State's new body—the new public sector higher education funding body, which is to make 98 institutions of higher education responsible directly to the Department of Education and Science, which is to take away control from local education authorities, because they cannot be trusted to cut enough, and which is to impose for the first time, under a party that has always advocated local freedom, the diktat of the Secretary of State and his Department. That is not good enough for the educational system of this country, when we face the cuts that are now being imposed on us. I do not have time to go into the other matters mentioned by other hon. Members that are devastating education today.
  The Secretary of State said in one of his speeches that human ingenuity is such that we should not think only of the bricks and mortar, of the fact that we never have the resources, but of how to deploy our education expenditure. But in conjunction with the Government of whom he is a member, he is imposing cuts by rigour, by attrition and by denial. One is reminded of the attitude of another educationist, the notorious Wackford Squeers in Nicholas Nickleby, who said when he had three slices of bread to feed five boys, and was putting them on the stage coach,
  "Subdue your appetites, my dears, and you have conquered human nature. This is the way we inculcate strength of mind, Mr. Nickleby".
  I do not believe that the appetite for education will be subdued. I do not believe that the solemn forecasts, like that by Peter Wilsher in The Sunday Times just a week ago,
  504
  of a mass walk-out from State education, if we have the progressive cuts, as over the past few years, will take place. The matter is poised and uncertain of resolution. I do not believe that parents will bolt from the system. They will make the case that the Secretary of State has failed to make. They will take the 1944 Act to the courts and insist on their due portion if they have to.
  I do not want this country to move towards the Polyfilla Society—a society where education is a matter of make-do-and-mend. The Secretary of State should speak out for education as effectively as his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House spoke out for defence. He rebelled in Cabinet on defence and got away with it. I have never seen the present Secretary of State do that. He should do his job. We mean him no ill-will, but if he does not do it, the parents of this country and the law will do it for him.
  I leave one last thought, on a campaign button from the United States, for the Under-Secretary of State who is winding up—"If you think education is expensive, try ignorance".
  9.37 pm
  The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Dr. Rhodes Boyson): I was wondering what button 1 should wear—"If you think education is important, spend the money wisely". That is probably the best.
  Today is an Opposition Supply Day. Yet up to about three minutes ago there were fewer than 10 Labour Back Benchers present for the Labour wind-up. My attention was drawn by my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) earlier when only one Back Bencher was present, presumably waiting to speak. They say that there is massive feeling in the Labour Party about this, but there was no indication that that feeling was present here.
  I am glad my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham mentioned the Foreign and Commonwealth Office's new scheme to raise from £34 million to £42 million the backing for Commonwealth scholars. It means that 5,000 students will be coming here. I am sure that both sides of the House will be delighted about that.
  Reference has been made to Her Majesty's inspectors' report. I do not need to go through the figures—90 per cent, material satisfactory, 80 per cent, staffing satisfactory, 70 per cent, books. But that is not something that has happened over the past two years. It has been a long-term process. There has always been a shortage of staff in certain subjects. When it is said that staffing is not satisfactory, it often means that staff are teaching subjects they are not qualified to teach.
  For years there has been a shortage of staff in maths, physics, chemistry, design and technology. What is even more strange is that many competent staff spend a lifetime teaching subjects for which they are not qualified. Almost every subject in this country could be fully covered if everyone went back to teaching the subject for which he was trained.
  The question of falling numbers is new. Certainly it is aggravating matters and local authorities and schools have to do something about it. The small comprehensive school was mentioned by the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) and by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State. It is true that the big comprehensive school has disciplinary problems but the small school has a spread of subject problems. But undoubtedly, small

  505
  comprehensive schools doing a full spread of subjects have robbed many other schools of their teachers in the minority subjects. Also, at a time of falling rolls, it means that they have major staffing problems if they are to have a full spread of subjects.
  As regards book supply, going back to Her Majesty's inspectors' national secondary school survey, which covered the years 1975-78, one finds that it pointed to the shortages of school textbooks even in mathematics and science. It is worth remembering that in the finances this year we have put in 2 per cent, more, in real terms, for books. We have recognised that books are the tools of the educational process.
  The problems of education have not arisen over the last 22 months. They have been long-term problems. Why, otherwise, did the previous Prime Minister inaugurate a long debate in 1976? That was only because parents, employers and people voting in constituencies were concerned then about educational standards. This is a long-term fact.
  Mention has been made of resources, and resources matter. One has first to have the resources, and then one has to spend them sensibly. This is a dual process.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State mentioned, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Shelton), that the percentage of gross national product spent on education has been doubled, from 2·7 per cent, to 5.5 per cent., over the last 30 years—twice the amount of money.
  The teacher-pupil ratio is not everything. I go along with the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) on that matter. [Interruption.] Yes, that was my statement. The hon. Member is approaching salvation. He may not have arrived at it yet, but he is reading the right texts and reading scriptures along the way.
  In 1960, in our primary schools, there were 29·4 pupils per teacher. In 1970 that figure had dropped to 27·5. Last January it was 22·7. That is seven fewer pupils per teacher than the figure in 1960. At secondary level, there were 4·1 fewer pupils per teacher in 1980 than there were in 1960.
  It is up to each school how it organises itself. People talk of classes of 30 and 40. On those pupil-teacher ratios, there then must be other classes of four, five and six, to balance it up. We do not do the timetables in Elizabeth House. Some people may like us to do them. Thank God that we do not do them. I have done many timetables in my time. One of the benefits of being a Minister and not a headmaster is that I do not do timetables. I have to reply to debates, but at least I do not have to do timetables through the night.
  It is up to schools to use the staff that they have been given in the right sort of way, and it is up to local authorities to distribute the staff throughout their authorities.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend (Mr. Brinton) referred particularly to the right use of the pupil-teacher ratio, because that is one of the most expensive things in the educational process. The hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Thomas) referred to classes in that respect. The hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Miss Lestor) also referred to this matter. She is now reading, I trust, the pupil-teacher ratio.
  On the question of class sizes, in 1974 18·5 per cent, of classes had 31 or more pupils. The hon. Member for
  506
  Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery), whose company I always enjoy, is depriving me of his company this evening, but as he referred to this matter I shall put it on record for him to read tomorrow and underline it for him when I pass it to him. The number of classes with 31 pupils and upwards in 1974 in secondary schools had dropped by 1980 to 10·2 per cent., and in primary schools it had dropped from 36·5 per cent, to 24·7 per cent. Similarly, between 1977 and 1980, not only has there been a lower pupil-teacher ratio, but there is at least some decline in the size of classes.
  My right hon. and learned Friend made another point about resources. This we must repeat, because we expect results from the expenditure of money. In the 20 years from 1960 to 1980, the amount of resources per pupil in primary schools, in real terms of money, increased by 64 per cent, per pupil. At secondary level it improved by 44 per cent. With that amount of money going in, with possibly a 1 per cent, or 2 per cent, cut here, I fail to understand how the whole fabric could be collapsing, since otherwise it was not even built 20 years ago, on the money that was going in before we increased the figures at the time.
  Again, between 1977–78 and 1980–81—this present year of grace—increased expenditure per pupil, in those three years, in real terms, in resources in our schools, rose by 7 per cent.
  That is the money being spent now—7 per cent, more in real terms per pupil. To talk about that as an attack upon the fabric of education is totally unfair.
  My right hon. and learned Friend made reference to comparisons of expenditure on education with other countries as a share of gross national product. I shall give the comparative figures which come from Europe and were not prepared in Elizabeth House by either my right hon. and learned Friend or myself. In 1975 in the United Kingdom we spent about 6·4 per cent on education in European terms. France spent 5·6 per cent of its gross national product on education and Germany spent 5·2 per cent. A similar comparison with the United States of America shows that it spent 6·2 per cent., so we are certainly putting our share into education.
  Whatever the reason that Britain has not taken off over the last 15–20 years, it is not because of the share of the gross national product that is being spent on education. There are obviously other reasons. I will send the figures to the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) tomorrow; they will fascinate him. In the 1965 figures there were even bigger discrepancies.
  To talk about what one has achieved, I have given figures on O and A-levels from time to time and my right hon. and learned Friend gave some this afternoon. If one takes the 10 years from 1968 to 1978 there was no improvement. If one takes 15 years, as the Secretary of State did this afternoon, there is a minor improvement of 1 to 2 per cent, in successes in O and A-levels. When one thinks of the resources that have been put in, certainly there has not been the proportionate increase that one might have expected. There has been a slight improvement, but with the raising of the school leaving age, with 3 million new school places having been built in the 1970s—probably the biggest school building programme we have ever had—with the reduction in the pupil-teacher ratio and the increased resources per pupil,

  507
  one would have looked for an even bigger increase. It is a question of assessing whether we are spending the money the right way. Have we the right priorities?
  One thing that worries me is that, on the figures available, the percentage intake to university of the children of blue collar workers has been dropping for the last 10 years. That should worry both sides of the Chamber. It means that we have become somehow a more divisive society.
  Mr. Kinnock: I share very deeply the hon. Gentleman's concern over this matter. Does he think that the situation can be improved in any way, no matter how judicious the expenditure is, by providing for less expenditure? If he thinks we are spending more, why did Her Majesty's inspectorate publish its report?
  Dr. Boyson: Let me correct the hon. Member. The HMI did not publish the report; the Secretary of State published it. I am grateful for the intervention which allowed me to put that on the record.
  At any point of time a Government decide how much to put into the various pockets of expenditure. Since we are spending £8·2 billion on education this year, it is important to make these points. The hon. Member for Berwick upon Tweed (Mr. Beith) made reference to what we can do. I should like to deal with this. There is no automatic relationship between expenditure and standards.—[Interruption.]—The hon. Member may not have done, in which case we agree.—[HON. MEMBERS:"Answer the question."]—I have answered the question. I am going on. I cannot spend all the time answering hypothetical questions.
  If one were to draw up a league of the areas that had the highest academic standards, there would be little relationship to how much per pupil they had put in. The hon. Member for Bedwellty has forced me to say that inner London spends more per pupil than anywhere else and half as many pupils are getting O levels.
  The question is: what do we do to raise standards? The first thing is teacher quality. Up to four or five years ago, nearly 40 per cent, of those being taken into colleges of education for teacher training at the age of 18 had not got O-level mathematics, and 5 per cent, had not got O-level English. Do hon. Members want those teachers to teach their children and grandchildren English and arithmetic in the primary schools?
  Mr. Beith: They are still in the system.
  Dr. Boyson: They are in the system but there are no more coming in. I am glad to give the hon. Member that good news. He should not run out yet; he should listen to the rest because there may be good news to come. From last September, anyone attending a college of education will have gone in with two A-levels and English and mathematics at O-level. That will do more for educational standards than 1,500 Royal Commissions.
  Reference was also made to teacher unemployment. In October, only 14 per cent, of all those qualified who came out of colleges of education or university last year, and who intended to teach, were unemployed and still seeking teaching posts. We agree that that is too many. But that compares with 22 per cent, in 1977, and which Government were in office then? Was an HMI report published at that time?
  Mr. Mark Carlisle: There was a report, but it was not published.
  Dr. Boyson: My right hon. and learned Friend reminds me that there was a report but that it was not published. Of those taking B.Ed Honours, only 13 per cent, were unemployed last year compared with 18 per cent, in 1977.
  Mrs. Renée Short: How many next year?
  Dr. Boyson: We shall have to wait and see. I am not a prophet. I know that the hon. Lady has great faith in me, but I must bring her down to earth. However, I very much appreciate her vote of confidence.
  My right hon. and learned Friend, in referring to shortage subjects, said that 45 percent, more graduates are undertaking the postgraduate certificate of education this year than last year. The figures will be at least the same next year. Within a year, they will be teaching within our schools.
  We intend to issue another statement about the curriculum. What matters is what is taught in schools. Let us have a look at some of the other HMI reports. I have with me an HMI report on primary education in England published in 1978. That refers time and again to schools without any work schemes in English, mathematics and other subjects. Perhaps the hon. Member for Bedwellty would like a debate on that. That report refers to the need to teach basic curricula inside the schools. That is why we are issuing another statement. It will offer advice on the sort of curriculum which should be taught in our schools.
  On examinations, we have stabilised the 18-plus. We are considering an intermediate level to back up A-levels. We are considering a 16-plus examination. We are retaining the standards of the GCE. The GCE boards will be responsible for the three top grades and the CSE board will be responsible for the other four. There will be overlap of syllabuses along the way, which I believe is important.
  Parental choice and support is also important. We gave more choice to parents in last year's Education Act. Under that they could state their preference and go to appeal if they were not allocated the schools of their choice. At a time of falling rolls, there are vacancies in schools, and that is the very time when we can give more choice in that way.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer) and others raised the question of fees for instrumental music lessons.—[HON. MEMBERS:"Ah Yes."] I trust that there will be silence on both sides of the House. At present, we cannot discuss the full implications of this judgment.
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: Reading.
  Dr. Boyson: I am reading in order to make sure that it is right. The right hon. Gentleman is extremely observant. I am pleased that I have a good audience tonight. [HON. MEMBERS:"Sing it."] Hope deferred, makes the heart sad.
  We cannot discuss the full implications of this judgment until the full transcript is available and there has been time to study it. But I wish to make it clear now that the judgment—that the Hereford and Worcester education authority was, by reason of section 61(1) of the Education Act 1944, not entitled to charge for the individual instrumental tuition provided for the two daughters of a local teacher—is one that obviously we shall look at.
  The lessons involved took place on the school premises and within school hours. They were given by peripatetic

  509
  teachers employed by the LEA. It may be helpful if I make it clear that religious education is the only item which the Education Acts require to be part of the school curriculum. The High Court has not ruled that instrumental music tuition should be part of the curriculum. It has ruled that if it is provided as part of the curriculum it must be provided free. I recognise that many authorities will be concerned about the implications of this judgment for their own practice.
  My right hon. and learned Friend attaches importance to instrumental music tuition and certainly would not wish to see it brought to an end in the maintained sector. But until he has considered the full judgment and its implications I am not in a position to say anything about future policy. We must be clear, however, about two things. First, many authorities have made a charge for instrumental music tuition for a long time. References have been made by various speakers as if charges came in only with the 1944 Act. When I went to a grammar school in the late 1930s I was charged for woodwork; I had to pay for the wood with which I made the egg stand that my father could not recognise when I took it home. He said"What the hell is it?" Woodwork was never my great specialty but I still had to pay for the wood even if it was nailed together instead of having dovetail joints. So this is something that has gone on for a long time.
  The second point is that authorities now provide instrumental tuition in a number of ways. Some hold classes in school time, some after 4 o'clock and some at dinner time; some make instrumental work part of their normal music lessons and some provide it through music clubs or the school orchestra. The High Court did not rule that any charge in any circumstances was illegal. It said that one local authority was not entitled to charge in the particular circumstances before the court. How far those circumstances are replicated in other authorities we shall obviously have to examine.
  There is one further point I should make at this stage. There is nothing in the High Court judgment to stop schools accepting voluntary contributions from parents or others in support of their musical activities, as for any other aspect of their work. These are not charges. There is no question of a child being excluded from lessons because its parents cannot or will not pay. Most schools make use of contributions of this kind, and we welcome that.
  Mr. Whitehead: In a sentence, is music, in the view of the DES, part of the curriculum where it is already in the curriculum, or is it not?
  Dr. Boyson: We consider that it is important that music is taught in schools and I shall be interested to see what we say in the statement we shall shortly be putting out.
  I must now return, after our little musical interlude, to the main theme, which is that at any point in any Government, including the last Labour Government, there will be a certain amount of money that can be spent on education, and it is important that we get the priorities right in deciding where that money is spent. Indeed, if we look at schools with the same money and the same staffing we find that the results are often different. If we look at the Rutter report,"Fifteen Thousand Hours", which I will not read because it is too long, we see that 12 schools in London with the same intake, the same staffing and the
  510
  same spread of ability were looked at and the results were totally different, and all credit to Inner London for allowing that investigation to take place.
  In school 1 there was five times as much chance of any pupil getting an O-level as there was in school 12. School 12 had two-and-a-half times as many absent in the fifth year as school 1.
  The important thing is what is done with the money, and what we feel on this side of the House and what we are concerned about—and what the Secretary of State and myself are concerned about—is, first of all, that the pupil-teacher ratio, despite what is said, is now the lowest it has ever been in Britain and will be at least as low, if not lower this year. So the material is there. Secondly, we are improving the quality of teachers coming into the schools so that the quality of teaching can go up. Thirdly, we are also stressing that teaching should be done in ability groups and not in mixed ability groups. Every one of these HMI reports has stressed that. Also, we firmly believe in the involvement of parents.
  I recommend that my right hon. and hon. Friends vote for the very sound amendment that we have tabled this evening.
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 233, Noes 299.

  Division No.96]

  [10.00 pm

  AYES

  Abse, Leo

  Dalyell, Tam

  Adams, Allen

  Davidson, Arthur

  Allaun, Frank

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

  Alton,David

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Anderson, Donald

  Davis, Clinton (HackneyC)

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

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

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Deakins, Eric

  Atkinson,N.(H'gey,)

  Dempsey, James

  Bagier, GordonA.T.

  Dewar, Donald

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Dixon, Donald

  Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)

  Dobson, Frank

  Beith, A. J.

  Dormand, Jack

  Benn, RtHon A.Wedgwood

  Douglas.Dick

  Bennett,Andrew (St'kp'tN)

  Douglas-Mann,Bruce

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Dubs, Alfred

  Booth, RtHonAlbert

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Bottomley, RtHonA. (M'b'ro)

  Dunn, James A.

  Bradley,Tom

  Dunnett, Jack

  Braine, SirBernard

  Dunwoody, Hon MrsG.

  Bray,Dr Jeremy

  Eadie, Alex

  Brown,Hugh D. (Provan)

  Eastham.Ken

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

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

  Brown, Ron (E'burgh,Leith)

  Ellis, R. (NED'bysh're)

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

  English,Michael

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

  Evans, loan (Aberdare)

  Campbell,Ian

  Evans, John (Newton)

  Campbell-Savours,Dale

  Ewing,Harry

  Canavan, Dennis

  Fitch, Alan

  Cant, R. B.

  Fitt, Gerard

  Carmichael, Neil

  Flannery, Martin

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Fletcher,Raymond (llkeston)

  Cartwright, John

  Fletcher,Ted (Darlington)

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stolS)

  Ford,Ben

  Cohen,Stanley

  Forrester.John

  Coleman,Donald

  Foster, Derek

  Concannon, Rt HonJ.D.

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

  Conlan,Bernard

  Freeson, RtHon Reginald

  Cook, Robin F.

  Garrett, John (NorwichS)

  Cowans, Harry

  George,Bruce

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

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Craigen.J. M.

  Ginsburg, David

  Crowther, J.S.

  Golding, John

  Cryer, Bob

  Gourlay, Harry

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Graham, Ted

  Cunningham, G. (lslingtonS)

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  511

  Grant, John (IslingtonC)

  Park, George

  Hamilton, James(Bothwell)

  Parker, John

  Hamilton, W. W. (C'tralFife)

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Hardy, Peter

  Pendry, Tom

  Harrison, RtHon Walter

  Penhaligon, David

  Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

  Powell, Raymond(Ogmore)

  Haynes, FranK

  Prescott, John

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Price, C. (Lewisham W)

  Heffer, EricS.

  Race, Reg

  Hogg.N.(EDunb't'nshire)

  Radice, Giles

  Holland,S.(Lb'th.Vauxh'll)

  Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)

  HomeRobertson, John

  Richardson, Jo

  Homewood, William

  Roberts, Allan(Bootle)

  Hooley, Frank

  Roberts, Ernest (HackneyN)

  Howell, Rt Hon D.

  Roberts, Gwilym(Cannock)

  Huckfield, Les

  Robertson, George

  Hudson Davies, Edmyfed

  Robinson, G. (CoventryNW)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Rodgers, RtHonWilliam

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Rooker, J.W.

  Janner, HonGreville

  Roper, John

  Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

  Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)

  John, Brynmor

  Rowlands, Ted

  Johnson, James (Hull West)

  Ryman, John

  Johnston, Russell (inverness)

  Sandelson, Neville

  Jones, Barry (EastFlint)

  Sever, John

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Sheerman,Barry

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

  Kerr, Russell

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Short, MrsRen¹e

  Kinnock, Neil

  Silkin, RtHonJ.(Deptford)

  Lambie, David

  Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

  Lamond, James

  Silverman, Julius

  Leighton, Ronald

  Skinner, Dennis

  Lestor, MissJoan

  Smith, RtHon J. (N Lanark)

  Lewis, Arthur (N'hamNW)

  Snape, Peter

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Soley, Clive

  Litherland, Robert

  Spearing, Nigel

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Stallard, A. W.

  Lyon, Alexander (York)

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Lyons, Edward (Bradf'dW)

  Stoddart, David

  McCartney, Hugh

  Stott, Roger

  McDonald, DrOonagh

  Straw,Jack

  McElhone, Frank

  Summer skill, Hon Dr Shirley

  McKay, Allen(Penistone)

  Taylor, MrsAnn (Bolton W)

  McKelvey, William

  Thomas, Dafydd(merioneth)

  MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

  Thomas, Jeffrey(Abertillery)

  Maclennan, Robert

  Thorne, Stan (PrestonSouth)

  McNally, Thomas

  Tilley, John

  McNamara, Kevin

  Tinn, James

  McTaggart, Robert

  Urwin, RtHon Tom

  McWilliam, John

  Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

  Magee, Bryan

  Wainwright, E. (DearneV)

  Marks, Kenneth

  Walker, RtHon H.(D' caster)

  Marshall, D(G'gowS'ton)

  Watkins, David

  Marshall,DrEdmund(Goole)

  Weetch, Ken

  Marshall, Jim (LeicesterS)

  Wellbeloved, James

  Martin, M(G'gowS'burn)

  Welsh, Michael

  Maxton, John

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Maynard, MissJoan

  Whitlock, William

  Meacher, Michael

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Mellish, RtHonRobert

  Willey, RtHon Frederick

  Mikardo, lan

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

  Millan, RtHon Bruce

  Williams, SirT.(W'ton,)

  Miller, Dr M. S. (EKilbride)

  Wilson, Rt HonSirH.(H'ton)

  Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)

  Wilson, William (C'trySE)

  Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)

  Woodall, Alec

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Woolmer, Kenneth

  Moyle, RtHon Roland

  Wrigglesworth, lan

  Newens, Stanley

  Young, David (BoltonE) Ogden, Eric

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Tellers for the Ayes: O'Neill, Martin

  Mr. Joseph Dean and

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Mr. George Morton.

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Ancram, Michael

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Alexander, Richard

  Atkins, Robert(PrestonN)

  Amery, RtHon Julian

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

  512

  Baker, Kenneth(St.M'bone)

  Fox, Marcus

  Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

  Fraser, RtHon Sir Hugh

  Banks, Robert

  Fraser, Peter (South Angus)

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Fry, Peter

  Bell, SirRonald

  Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.

  Bendall, Vivian

  Gardiner, George(Reigate)

  Bennett, SirFrederic (T'bay)

  Gardner, Edward (SFylde)

  Benyon,Thomas(A'don)

  Garel-Jones,Tristan

  Benyon, W.(Buckingham)

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Best, Keith

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Bevan, DavidGilroy

  Gorst, John

  Biffen, RtHon John

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Grant, Anthony (HarrowC)

  Blackburn, John

  Gray, Hamish

  Bonsor, SirNicholas

  Greenway, Harry

  Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)

  Grieve, Percy

  Bowden, Andrew

  Griffiths, E.(B'ySt.Edm'ds)

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes

  Griffiths, Peter Portsm'thN)

  Braine, SirBernard

  Grist, Ian

  Bright, Graham

  Grylls, Michael

  Brinton, Tim

  Gummer, JohnSelwyn

  Brittan, Leon

  Hamilton, HonA.

  Brooke Hon Peter

  Hamilton, Michael(Salisbury)

  Brotherton, Michael

  Hampson, DrKeith

  Brown, Michael(Brigg&Sc'n)

  Hannam, John

  Browne, John(Winchester)

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Bruce-Gardyne, John

  Hastings, Stephen

  Bryan, SirPaul

  Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

  Buchanan-Smith, Alick

  Hawksley, Warren

  Buck, Antony

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Budgen, Nick

  Heddle, John

  Bulmer Esmond

  Henderson, Barry

  Burden, SirFrederick

  Heseltine, RtHonMichael

  Butcher, John

  Hicks, Robert

  Carlisle, John(Lutonwest)

  Higgins, RtHon Terence L.

  Carlisle, Kenneth(Lincoln)

  Hogg, HonDouglas(Gr'th'm)

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

  Holland, Philip(Carlton)

  Chaiker, Mrs. Lynda

  Hooson, Tom

  Channon, Rt. Hon, Paul

  Hordern, Peter

  Chapman, Sydney

  Howe, RtHon Sir Geoffrey

  Churchill, W.S.

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

  Clark, HonA. (Plym'th,S'n)

  Howell, Ralph (NNorfolk)

  Clark, Sir W. (CroydonS)

  Hunt, David (Wirral)

  Clarke, Kenneth(Rushcliffe)

  Hunt, John(Ravensbourne)

  Cockeram, Eric

  Hurd, Hon Douglas

  Colvin, Michael

  Irving, Charles(Cheltenham)

  Cope, John

  Jenkin, RtHon Patrick

  Cormack, Patrick

  Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

  Corrie, John

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Costain, SirAlbert

  Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Kaberry, SirDonald

  Critchley, Julian

  Kellett-Bowman, MrsElaine

  Crouch, David

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Dean, Paul (NorthSomerset)

  Kimball, Marcus

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Kitson, Sir Timothy

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

  Knight, MrsJill

  Dover, Denshore

  Knox, David

  du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

  Lamont, Norman

  Dunn,Robert(Dartford)

  Lang, Ian

  Durant, Tony

  Langford-Holt, SirJohn

  Dykes, Hugh

  Latham, Michael

  Eden, RtHon Sir John

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

  Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

  Eggar, Tim

  Lee, John

  Elliott, SirWilliam

  Lennox-Boyd, HonMark

  Emery, Peter

  Lewis,Kenneth(Rutland)

  Eyre, Reginald

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Fairgrieve, Russell

  Loveridge, John

  Faith, MrsSheila

  Luce, Richard

  Farr, John

  McCrindle, Robert

  Fell, Anthony

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Fenner, Mrs Peggy

  MacGregor, John

  Finsberg, Geoffrey

  MacKay, John (Argyll)

  Fisher, Sir Nigel

  Macmillan, Rt Hon M.

  Fletcher,A.(Ed'nb'ghN)

  McNair-Wilson, M(N,'bury)

  Fietcher-Cooke, SirCharles

  McNair-Wilson, P. (NewF'st)

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  McQuarrie, Albert

  Forman, Nigel

  Madel, David

  Fowler, RtHon Norman

  Major, John

  513

  Marland, Paul

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  Marlow, Tony

  St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.

  MarshalI Michael(Arundel)

  Scott, Nicholas

  Mates, Michael

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Mather, Carol

  Shaw, Michael(Scarborough)

  Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus

  Shelton, William(Streatham)

  Mawby, Ray

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Mawhinney, DrBrian

  Shepherd, Richard

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Silvester, Fred

  Mayhew, Patrick

  Sims, Roger

  Mellor, David

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Meyer, SirAnthony

  Smith, Dudley

  Miller,Hal(B'grove)

  Speed, Keith

  Mills, lain(Meriden)

  Speller, Tony

  Mills, Peter (West Devon)

  Spence, John

  Mitchell,David(Basingstoke)

  Spicer, Jim (WestDorset)

  Moate, Roger

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Monro, Hector

  Sproat, lain

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Squire, Robin

  Moore, John

  Stanbrook, lvor

  Morgan, Geraint

  Stanley, John

  Morris, M. (N'hamptonS)

  Steen, Anthony

  Morrison, HonC. (Devizes)

  Stevens, Martin

  Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

  Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

  Mudd, David

  Stewart,A(ERenfrewshire)

  Murphy, Christopher

  Stokes, John

  Neale, Gerrard

  Stradling Thomas,J.

  Needham, Richard

  Tapsell, Peter

  Nelson, Anthony

  Taylor, Robert (CroydonNW)

  Neubert, Michael

  Taylor, Teddy (S'endE)

  Newton, Tony

  Tebbit, Norman

  Nott, Rt Hon John

  Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

  Onslow, Cranley

  Thompson, Donald

  Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Osborn, John

  Townend, John (Bridington)

  Page, John (Harrow, West)

  Townsend, Cyril D,(B'heath)

  Page, Rt Hon Sir G. (Crosby)

  Trippier, David

  Page, Richard (SWHerts)

  Trotter, Neville

  Parkinson, Cecil

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Parris, Matthew

  Vaughan, DrGerard

  Patten, Christopher(Bath)

  Viggers, Peter

  Pattie, Geoffrey

  Waddington, David

  Pawsey, James

  Waldegrave, HonWilliam

  Percival, Sirlan

  Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

  Peyton, Rt Hon John

  Walker, B. (Perth)

  Pink,R.Bonner

  Walker-Smith, RtHonSirD.

  Pollock, Alexander

  Wall, Patrick

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  Waller, Gary

  Price, SirDavid(Eastleigh)

  Walters, Dennis

  Prior, Rt Hon James

  Ward, John

  Proctor, K.Harvey

  Warren, Kenneth

  Pym, Rt Hon Francis

  Watson, John

  Raison, Timothy

  Wells,John(Maidstone)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Wells, Bowen

  Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)

  Wheeler, John

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Whitelaw, RtHonWilliam

  Renton, Tim

  Whitney, Raymond

  RhodesJames, Robert

  Wickenden, Keith

  Rhys Williams, SirBrandon

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Ridley, Hon Nicholas

  Williams, D.(Montgomery)

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Wolfson, Mark

  Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)

  Young,SirGeorge(Acton)

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Rossi, Hugh

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Rost, Peter

  Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and

  Royle, SirAnthony

  Mr. Anthony Berry.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 32 (Questions on amendments) and agreed to.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker Mr. Deputy Speaker forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House notes the report by Her Majesty's Inspectorate on"The Effects on the Educational Service in England of Local Authority Expenditure Policies—Financial Year 1980–81", and
  514
  whilst recognising the need to restrain public expenditure expresses confidence in the ability of the education service in England, through the co-operation of all its partners, to secure maximum educational value from the extensive resources which continue to be available to it.
  It being after Ten o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded to put forthwith the Questions which he was directed by paragraphs (7) and (11) of Standing Order No. 18 (Business of Supply) to put at that hour.

  DEFENCE ESTIMATES, 1981–82 (NAVY), VOTE A
  Question,
  That during the year ending on 31st March 1982 a number not exceeding 78,000 Officers, Ratings and Royal Marines be maintained for Naval Service, put and agreed to.

  DEFENCE ESTIMATES, 1981–82 (ARMY), VOTE A
  Question,
  That during the year ending on 31st March 1982 a number not exceeding 190,000 all ranks be maintained for Army Service, a number not exceeding 60,000 for the Regular Reserve, a number not exceeding 84,400 for the Territorial Army and a number not exceeding 12,600 for the Ulster Defence Regiment, put and agreed to.

  DEFENCE ESTIMATES, 1981–82 (AIR), VOTE A
  Question,
  That during the year ending on 31 March 1982 a number not exceeding 98,000 all ranks be maintained for Air Force Service, a number not exceeding 10,775 for the Royal Air Force Reserve and a number not exceeding 1,000 for the Royal Auxiliary Air Force, put and agreed to.

  DEFENCE SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1980–81
  Question,
  That a further supplementary sum not exceeding £378,129,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund, to defray the charges which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31 March 1981 for expenditure on Defence Services, as set out in House of Commons Paper No. 138, put and agreed to.

  CIVIL SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1980–81
  Question,
  That a further supplementary sum not exceeding £1,786,623,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31 March 1981 for expenditure on Civil Services as set out in House of Commons Papers Nos. 139 and 184, put and agreed to.

  CIVIL SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES (CLASS XIII A) 1980–81
  Question,
  That a further supplementary sum not exceeding £1,416,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges which will come in course of payment during the year ending 31 March 1981 for expenditure on House of Commons: Administration, as set out in House of Commons Paper No. 144, put and agreed to.

  CIVIL AND DEFENCE ESTIMATES, EXCESSES, 1979–80
  Question,
  That a sum not exceeding £34,297,072·18 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to make good excesses on certain grants for Civil and Defence Services for the year ended 31 March 1980, as set out in House of Commons Paper No. 137, put and agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in upon the four foregoing Resolutions by the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Leon Brittan, Mr. Nigel Lawson, and Mr. Peter Rees.

  CONSOLIDATED FUND (NO. 2)
  Mr. Nigel Lawson accordingly presented a Bill to apply certain sums out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the years ending on 31 March 1980 and 1981; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 82.]

  ARMED FORCES BILL
  Ordered,
  That Mr. Robert Atkins, Mr. Keith Best, Mr. Robert C Brown, Mr. Bernard Conlan, Mr. A. E. P. Duffy, Mr. Bruce George, Mr. Philip Goodhart, Mr. David Hunt, Mr. Cyril D. Townsend, Mr. David Trippier and Mr. James Wellbeloved be members of the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill;
  Ordered,
  That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records;
  Ordered,
  That Three be the Quorum of the Committee.—[Mr. John Stradling Thomas.]

  Dyslexia
  Motion made and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Gummer.]
  10.16 pm
  Mr. Tim Eggar: I am grateful to Mr. Speaker for selecting the subject of dyslexia for debate tonight. The fact that we are talking about this subject is controversial in itself. Many experts in this field do not accept that dyslexia exists. Only in the last 10 to 15 years has the word"dyslexia" become known outside a relatively small circle of medical or education specialists. Even now, we do not know the cause of dyslexia. We have no accurate assessment of the size of the problem or any complete agreement on how dyslexia should be treated.
  I do not wish to take sides tonight in what are inevitably learned medical arguments about the causality of dyslexia. Nor do I wish to take up a stance in the discussion between the academics on the best way to teach dyslexics. I am interested only in ensuring that those who are dyslexic or those who have special learning difficulties—however we wish to term it—are diagnosed as soon as possible and treated in the best possible way.
  We have to start from the fundamental question of"What is dyslexia?". To my surprise, I found that the best working definition I could identify was that used by Baroness Young in another place when she said: that, whatever the cause or nature of the condition currently called dyslexia, its manifestation was that the child had difficulty in reading, writing and spelling.
  Those words, to my mind, constitute an important milestone. In those remarks, made in the course of a short dissertation on the subject of dyslexia, Lady Young was the first Minister to have gone on record both in admitting that dyslexia exists and that it requires special treatment. I was therefore rather sad when I received responses to parliamentary questions that I tabled to my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson) in which I felt that he went out of his way to avoid using the word"dyslexia."
  First, I ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State to give an assurance that the Government accept the words of the noble Lady in another place and recognise that dyslexia exists and that dyslexia is intended to be covered by the Education Bill that is now in Committee. Estimates of the number of those who suffer from dyslexia vary significantly. Some American studies have indicated that as much as 20 per cent, of the population suffer from some form of dyslexia at some stage in their lives. The consensus in the United Kingdom is that about 4 per cent, of the population have some form of dyslexia at some time. I know that the British Dyslexia Association prefers to be conservative and puts the figure at 1 per cent. However, if it is 1 per cent, it means that there are about 90,000 dyslexic school children.
  It is worth considering the cost to society of failing to identify and help children and adults who suffer from dyslexia. An aspect of dyslexia that Baroness Young's definition does not cover is the dyslexic child's performance in reading, writing and spelling, which is often considerably below what would otherwise be his natural ability.
  Children who are dyslexic but are not diagnosed or treated once diagnosed will not be able to make the contribution to society of which they are capable. The
  518
  result of lack of diagnosis is only too often that the child involved comes under the most tremendous emotional stress. The child appears to parents and adults to be as bright, sharp and intelligent as his contemporaries. The child feels that in conversation and play with other children he is at least their equal, as in conversation and argument. However, all too often he finds that when in the classroom his inability to read, write and spell leads to complete frustration, a frustration that he cannot understand and comprehend.
  I do not have to remind the House that a frustrated and emotionally disturbed child is often the first to get himself and others into trouble. I am not aware of any studies that have been carried out to try to link dyslexia with crime. However, about 20 per cent, of convicted offenders in detention centres and prisons have real reading difficulties. It is fairly certain that a high proportion of that 20 per cent, are dyslexic. I do not claim that dyslexia excuses crime, but it is worth saying that failure to diagnose and to treat dyslexia may have played some part in setting aside the offender from the rest of society. It may mean that the child or individual will become a charge on society rather than a contributor to society.
  I turn to some of the areas in which I feel that the Government could be of assistance. I recognise the severe financial restraints under which the Department of Education and Science is now operating. I have tried deliberately to limit my suggestions to areas that will not lead to significant additional costs. First, and most important, the Government should follow up Baroness Young's statement in another place by giving a strong lead to local authorities, and if necessary doing this by issuing a circular drawing attention to the Government's recognition of dyslexia and making positive recommendations on the treatment that dyslexics should receive. It is still a sad fact that many local education authorities refuse to recognise the problem, or even if they recognise a child as being dyslexic, they claim that no additional remedial teaching is necessary beyond what is already given in remedial classes.
  It will not be sufficient for the Government merely to shuffle the problem on to the LEAs. I hope that, as a result of proceedings in Committee upstairs and indeed as a result of the Second Reading debate, the Government will respond rather more positively to the need for in-service training and teacher training courses to be geared to ensuring that teachers who have worked with children in primary schools and those in training who are shortly to become teachers have the necessary training both to identify dyslexic children and to treat them. I have found no trace of any comment in proceedings in relation to the Bill which specifically draws attention to the problems of dyslexic children. I emphasise that in-service training, in particular, cannot simply be left to LEAs. The Government must give a lead.
  I recently attended a conference run by the London Dyslexia Association which was attended mainly by teachers and educational psychologists. The strongest theme coming out of that conference was that none of those people, either in additional training that they received to become education psychologists or in their original training as teachers, had even been made aware that dyslexia existed and was a problem, let alone given any training in how to cope with dyslexics.
  As a layman, I have difficulty in understanding the different attitudes taken towards dyslexia by the various

  519
  people involved—education psychologists, teachers, general practitioners, LEAs and administrators—all of whom seem to consider the problem of dyslexia only within their own little circle. They do not seem to talk to the other professions involved or to exchange ideas about treatment. I hope that the Government will encourage a trend towards more interdisciplinary discussion and debate. Again, the Government could perhaps do this by running courses at very little cost.
  It is not only in education that we seek a lead. I shall not dwell on this point, but I believe that the Government must go outside the sphere of education and try to make probation officers, social workers, welfare officers, the general medical profession and indeed the public as a whole aware of this problem. Again, this will not involve vast expenditure so much as judicious announcements at the appropriate time.
  There is a further point on which I hope that the Minister will comment in some detail. It is surprising in many ways that much of the expertise in dealing with dyslexics lies with the voluntary groups such as the British Dyslexia Association and its many branches—I believe that there are now about 50. In many cases, the LEAs and the education psychologists are somehow not prepared to refer children to those voluntary' groups and they are not prepared to work with them. I cannot really get at the reason for this. Admittedly, some of the voluntary groups require payment for remedial teaching if it is given. But there is somehow a lack of willingness on the part of many LEAs and many professional people to get the voluntary groups actively involved in treating children and indeed in running some of the in-service courses which should be put on for teachers in primary schools. Now that the LEAs are to have a statutory duty placed on them by the Education Bill I hope that the Government will use that new opportunity to discuss with the voluntary groups how they can play a more active role in assisting the LEAs to meet those statutory obligations.
  I have concentrated mainly on the need for diagnosis and treatment for children. But clearly many children go right through secondary school who are not identified early enough, and who enter employment without being identified. The MSC is doing a fair amount through its psychological service to help in that area, but again I feel that more publicity and more open talking to employers about the problems faced by dyslexic people would help also.
  Another point, of which the Minister is aware, is the unfortunate tendency of examining boards to apply different criteria when they decide what assistance to give the dyslexic children taking examinations. There is a need for some guidance from the Department on the criteria that should be used by the boards. There is definitely a difference in the way in which dyslexic children are treated.
  I have deliberately ranged widely and superficially over what is a complex medical and educational problem. Much progress has been made during the past decade, but much more needs to be done. The tragedy of dyslexia is that it is a tragedy of wasted human resources. No country can afford that. No country can afford a substantial number of people who are dissatisfied because of their under-achievement. I hope that as a result of this debate the Government will take a rather more positive stance in tackling the many problems that face dyslexics.
  10.32 pm
  The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Neil Macfarlane): The House and those who have children with learning difficulties will have every reason to be grateful to my hon. friend the Member for Enfield, North (Mr. Eggar) for raising this subject. In the few minutes available to me to reply to his points, I hope to cover as many of them as possible. I shall communicate with him on the points that I am unable to deal with to ensure that this important matter is fully covered.
  I endorse the comments made by my noble Friend the Minister in another place. That particular definition is something that caught my eye when, because of the debate this evening, I did some historical reference work and read the Tizard report. The Tizard committee was brought into this by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in 1971, when she was Secretary of State for Education and Science. She asked her advisory committee on handicapped children to advise whether LEAs required guidance on the education of children suffering from dyslexia. That resulted in the Tizard report"Children with Specific Reading Difficulties". It was sceptical of the view that a specific syndrome of developmental dyslexia had been identified. That was the point made by my hon. Friend.
  The Tizard committee expressed the view that there was a continuum spanning the whole range of reading abilities from those of the most fluent readers to those with the most severe difficulties. It preferred the term"specific reading difficulties" to describe the small number of children whose reading abilities were significantly below their general standards, and considered the needs of those children as part of the problem of reading backwardness of all sorts.
  What interests me—and it may interest my hon. Friend, who may not have read the report—is that on its first page, written in 1972, it states:
  "Consideration of the proper educational needs of children with severe reading difficulties has been beset by conflicting descriptions and definitions of their condition. The term 'dyslexia' was originally used—and is still applied—by neurologists to describe severe difficulty in reading after a localised injury to the brain of an adult who was previously a competent reader."
  That gives some idea of the problem. No doubt all of us who are interested in education, as Members of Parliament or as parents, have come across it. That definition is most interesting, and fans the problems of communication which exist in trying to identify the problem.
  The review committee took the view that the majority of these children would respond in time to good remedial teaching closely geared to their individual needs, although it recognised that some children with acute difficulties might need to be withdrawn from school to attend part-time or full-time remedial sessions at remedial centres. In general however, it concluded that most children were best left in their schools.
  My hon. Friend made some points about the role of my Department. Many of the points which I hope to cover in my remarks are about the regulations now being implemented for the end of 1982 as a result of the Education (No. 2) Act 1980. which will give parents protection.
  I remind my hon. Friend that the Department of Education and Science does not employ any teachers. That

  521
  is done through the local education authorities. However, I accept that there is a need for the Department to give guidance in conjunction with experts from other areas.
  The Warnock report of 1978 also recognised that there were no criteria for distinguishing children with learning difficulties from others who require remedial teaching. The members of the committee considered however that there were children whose disabilities were marked but whose general ability was at least average. They used the term"specific learning difficulties" to describe the problems of those children and suggested that distinctive arrangements were required for them. The term"specific learning difficulties" is generally seen as the most useful terminology for education purposes. It suggests a"specific" problem requiring urgent attention, but without implying any definite causation or an exclusive categorisation.
  First, the Bill now before the House will have the effect of abolishing a system of categorisation which does not identify—I hope this will appeal to my hon. Friend—a separate category of specific learning difficulties, and replacing it by a wider concept of special educational needs which could embrace such problems. A statutory obligation will be placed on LEAs and school governors to have regard to special educational needs in carrying out their functions.
  In this context, it is particularly ironic that there should be a concern to categorise"dyslexia" precisely when general opinion emphasises the need for individual assessment. I recognise that it is important that teachers and other professionals should develop expertise in different aspects of special education, but that is most likely to be achieved by drawing attention to learning difficulties within the framework of our new legislation.
  Secondly, children with specific learning difficulties will be covered in the Bill's definition of special educational need, and within this wider definition, guidance will be given to local authorities on the assessment of their needs. It will be for individual local authorities to determine whether a child's difficulties are so severe and so complex as to require multi-professional assessment and the maintenance of a statement. In such instances, a contribution of the Bill will be to encourage a detailed assessment of the child to identify the precise nature of his or her learning problem and point the way to appropriate teaching arrangements. The Bill also provides for the regular review of the child's progress.
  Thirdly, the Bill proposes the establishment of new rights for parents and new grounds of appeal. That is an important element. Parents will be able to request LEAs to assess their child's special educational needs, and LEAs will have to comply with the request unless they consider it unreasonable. Where a child is assessed, his parents must be kept informed at every stage and will have the right to make representations. If the LEA decides not to make a formal statement, the parents will be able to appeal against that to the Secretary of State. If a formal statement is made, the parents will see it in draft and have the right to comment. If they are unhappy with the final statement, they will be able to appeal about the provision to be made to a local appeal committee and thence to the Secretary of State.
  Parents whose children do not have needs such as to involve them in the process of multi-professional
  522
  assessment and in the making of a statement will, of course, have rights under the Education Act 1980. The Act provides a right for parents to express a preference as to the school that their child should attend and to appeal to a local appeal committee if they are dissatisfied with the school place offered for their child by the local authority. It will be open to them to appear before such a committee, and the committee may allow them to be accompanied by a friend or to be represented.
  The Bill, additionally, will encourage the early identification of children with special educational needs, and this will be particularly relevant in the case of children with learning difficulties, since it is important that such children should be helped at the earliest opportunity.
  I should also like to point out that my Department has given priority to specific learning difficulties, and it is currently sponsoring an extensive programme of research in this field which aims to provide practical information on the prevalence of the problem, on the means of identifying children with specific learning difficulties and on different types of intervention programmes to help them. As part of this programme, my Department has sponsored a critical review of all relevant research, including research on assessment and remediation, and the report of this review by the National Foundation for Educational Research is due to be published later this year. Other reports will become available in 1982 and 1983. The purpose of all these studies is to provide practical information to local authorities and to improve the skills of teachers in identifying children with specific learning difficulties, in assessing their needs and in meeting these needs in the classroom.
  The primary responsibility for securing that suitable education is available for children with specific learning difficulties, as for all children, rests with local education authorities, and it is for them to decide on the appropriate level of provision locally. A survey carried out by my department in 1977 found that three-quarters of LEAs in England and Wales had reading centres or clinics or remedial centres or both and that the remainder concentrated their remedial teaching resources in ordinary schools.
  The crucial issue is not one of labelling, however. It is the pragmatic one of what can and should be done in the education system to meet the needs of children with learning problems. My Department has been in regular contact with the British Dyslexia Association as the national body in this field, and it has taken note of its major concerns, particularly with regard to the legislation now going through this House. This link has proved extremely valuable.
  There has been some criticism about the effectiveness of remedial education in State schools. It is generally agreed that additional help with reading, writing and spelling difficulties is most effective when it is provided in close association with a child's general education in his ordinary school. This ensures that the skills acquired through special help can be regularly practised as part of the work carried out in ordinary classes. The separation of special instruction from other school work is one reason why the results of remedial education have not always been satisfactory. Another reason is the time taken to put the results of research into effective practice. In this respect, there has been a small but significant increase in

  523
  the range of courses available to teachers which concentrate on meeting special educational needs in ordinary schools.
  The question of terminology has caused many harmful and unnecessary disputes at local level which have not served the best interests of the children concerned. There have been cases, for example, where a child has been diagnosed as"dyslexic" by an independent expert, and his parents were then baffled to find that their local authority did not recognise the use of the term. Not unnaturally, they felt that their child's needs were not being properly assessed or met within the State system and that the answer to the problem was more likely to be provided by independent schools or tuition centres catering specifically for dyslexic pupils. I do not wish to decry the work of these bodies, but the plain fact is that there is little importance to be attached to a label, and there is no single universally effective solution to the complex problem of specific learning dificulties.
  The answer is good remedial provision, using a range of established methods tailored to the individual needs of each child. There is much to be learnt from developments in both the maintained and the voluntary sectors about methods which are successful in helping individual children. However, there is at present no single approach which is generally agreed to be appropriate. As with many other aspects of education, much depends on teachers keeping abreast of research and continuing to develop their skill.
  I hope that I have convinced my hon. Friend that my Department and the education service as a whole have a duty to respond and to complement each other. There is evidence that they are doing just that.
  My hon. Friend has made many points in what has been an important debate. Many people will recognise the great contribution that he has made. He was a little disgruntled about some of the questions that were answered earlier this year by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson), but, again, I believe that he understands the difficulty about identification and, indeed, the difficulty of communication.
  I turn briefly to public examinations, which my hon. Friend referred to in his speech. If time does not permit,
  524
  I undertake to write to my hon. Friend. The allowance made in public examinations for children diagnosed as"dyslexic", as for all handicapped children, is a matter for the individual examination boards. I know, however, that in September 1980 the Schools Council wrote to all the boards commending advice issued after discussions between the British Medical Association and representatives of the GCE and CSE boards. This stressed that dyslexia was not a medical problem but a learning difficulty and stated that certification should be primarily a matter for the education psychologist. It recommended that where schools had pupils with such difficulties they should warn the examination boards in good time and provide a clear statement of the child's disability. I commend this as sensible and realistic advice in a difficult and controversial area.
  Many important points have been raised by my hon. Friend in the debate. I am grateful to him, as will be others who read the wider significance of the debate. It is a very difficult subject. It is a complex area. It is one of communication between those in the education service and those in the medical arena Suffice it to say that we believe in our Department—in co-ordinating the recognition of some of the problems, and the work of the Schools Council, the examination boards and the National Foundation for Educational Research—that the education service will respond as a whole. Additionally, we believe that not only the current legislation going through the House of Commons but also the Education (No. 2) Act 1980 will play a very significant part in helping young people who have this learning difficulty to try to make their way in society.
  I fully accept all the points and problems to which my hon. Friend referred. This is an important subject. It is one of difficult identification, Mr. Deputy Speaker, which you will know from your previous years as a Minister in the Department. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this subject. If there are outstanding points, I undertake to write to him about those issues.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at fourteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.

TRADE
  World Trade Statistics
  World Trade Statistics
  Companies House, Cardiff
  Companies House, Cardiff
  Bankruptcies and Registrations
  Bankruptcies and Registrations
  Telecommunications Equipment (Imports)
  Telecommunications Equipment (Imports)
  Oil Imports
  Oil Imports
ENERGY
  Council of Energy Ministers
  Council of Energy Ministers
  Gas-gathering Pipeline
  Gas-gathering Pipeline
  Petroleum Production
  Petroleum Production
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Human Rights (Report)
  Human Rights (Report)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Prison Population
  Prison Population
  Fourth Television Channel
  Fourth Television Channel
  Commission for Racial Equality
  Commission for Racial Equality
  Open Channel Radio
  Open Channel Radio
  BBC Revenue
  BBC Revenue
  Shotguns and Firearms
  Shotguns and Firearms
  Ethnic Minorities (Protection)
  Ethnic Minorities (Protection)
  Williams Report
  Williams Report
  Interception of Communications
  Interception of Communications
  Immigration Decisions (Representations)
  Immigration Decisions (Representations)
  Police Complaints Board
  Police Complaints Board
  Young Offenders (Community Service)
  Young Offenders (Community Service)
  County Electoral Arrangements
  County Electoral Arrangements
  Mentally Disturbed Prisoners
  Mentally Disturbed Prisoners
  Merseyside Community Relations Council
  Merseyside Community Relations Council
  Irish Republican Army
  Irish Republican Army
  Coroners' Courts
  Coroners' Courts
  Public Order Acts (Review)
  Public Order Acts (Review)
  Prison Hostel Service
  Prison Hostel Service
  Prison Officers (Dispute)
  Prison Officers (Dispute)
  Domestic Broadcasts (Reception)
  Domestic Broadcasts (Reception)
  British Nationality Bill
  British Nationality Bill
  Holloway Prison
  Holloway Prison
  "Whither the Future?"
  "Whither the Future?"
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
  Judicial Appointment Holders (Pensions)
  Judicial Appointment Holders (Pensions)
  Legal Aid
  Legal Aid
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Refreshment Department
  Refreshment Department
PRIME MINISTER
  Engagements
  Engagements
  Poole
  Poole
  TUC
  TUC
  North Reddish, Stockport
  North Reddish, Stockport
  Wales
  Wales
  United States of America (Visit)
  United States of America (Visit)
  Royal Ulster Constabulary (Arms Supplies)
  Royal Ulster Constabulary (Arms Supplies)
  Nationalised Industries (Information)
  Nationalised Industries (Information)
  Republic of Ireland
  Republic of Ireland
  Petitions and Deputations
  Petitions and Deputations
  Neutron Bomb
  Neutron Bomb
  Factory Closures
  Factory Closures
  Top Salaries Review Body
  Top Salaries Review Body
  New Technologies
  New Technologies
  Coal Industry (Subsidies)
  Coal Industry (Subsidies)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Civil Defence
  Civil Defence
  Charity Commissioners
  Charity Commissioners
  Young Offenders (Voluntary After-care)
  Young Offenders (Voluntary After-care)
  Overseas Visitors (Visas)
  Overseas Visitors (Visas)
  Channel Islands
  Channel Islands
  Boundary Commission (Post-appeal Conclusions)
  Boundary Commission (Post-appeal Conclusions)
  Gibraltar
  Gibraltar
EMPLOYMENT
  Northern Region
  Northern Region
  Temporary Short-time Working Compensation Scheme (London)
  Temporary Short-time Working Compensation Scheme (London)
  Ethnic Minorities
  Ethnic Minorities
  Young Persons
  Young Persons
  Courtaulds Limited
  Courtaulds Limited
  Pay
  Pay
  Disabled Persons
  Disabled Persons
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Composite Tax Rate System
  Composite Tax Rate System
  Non-departmental Public Bodies
  Non-departmental Public Bodies
  Treasury and Supply Delegation (Washington and New York)
  Treasury and Supply Delegation (Washington and New York)
  Notional Benefits (Tax)
  Notional Benefits (Tax)
  Pensioners (Tax Exemption)
  Pensioners (Tax Exemption)
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  Tax Evasion
  Tax Evasion
  Capital Taxation
  Capital Taxation
  Stamp Duty
  Stamp Duty
  Mortgage Interest (Tax Treatment)
  Mortgage Interest (Tax Treatment)
  Arts Sponsorship (Tax Benefits)
  Arts Sponsorship (Tax Benefits)
  Petroleum Revenue Tax
  Petroleum Revenue Tax
  Income Tax
  Income Tax
  Capital Allowances
  Capital Allowances
  Revenue Statistics
  Revenue Statistics
WALES
  Rural Transport
  Rural Transport
  Welsh Office (Commodities and Animal Health Divisions)
  Welsh Office (Commodities and Animal Health Divisions)
  Welsh Office (Agriculture Department)
  Welsh Office (Agriculture Department)
  Housing
  Housing
INDUSTRY
  Courtaulds Limited (Aintree Plant)
  Courtaulds Limited (Aintree Plant)
  Waste Paper
  Waste Paper
  Telecommunications Equipment
  Telecommunications Equipment
  Council of Ministers
  Council of Ministers
DEFENCE
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
  Royal Marines
  Royal Marines
  Service Manpower
  Service Manpower
  Pilots
  Pilots
  Deal
  Deal
  Service Bands
  Service Bands
  Stornoway
  Stornoway
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Republic of Ireland
  Republic of Ireland
  Miss Helen Smith
  Miss Helen Smith
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Boundary Commission
  Boundary Commission
SCOTLAND
  Departmental Officials (Government Cars)
  Departmental Officials (Government Cars)
  Rate Support Grant
  Rate Support Grant
  Housing Expenditure
  Housing Expenditure
  Terrorism
  Terrorism
  Development Areas (Glasgow)
  Development Areas (Glasgow)
  Mullwharcher (Test Boring)
  Mullwharcher (Test Boring)
  Musical Tuition
  Musical Tuition
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Earnings Rule
  Earnings Rule
  Invalidity Benefit
  Invalidity Benefit
  Overseas Students
  Overseas Students
  Disabled Persons (DIAL (UK))
  Disabled Persons (DIAL (UK))
  Medicines (Child-proof Containers)
  Medicines (Child-proof Containers)
  Social Security Offences
  Social Security Offences
  Exceptional Needs Payments
  Exceptional Needs Payments
  Benefits (Leaflets)
  Benefits (Leaflets)
  Maternity Allowance
  Maternity Allowance
  Social Security Offices (Datalink Computer Equipment)
  Social Security Offices (Datalink Computer Equipment)
  Elderly Persons (Income/Expenditure)
  Elderly Persons (Income/Expenditure)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Comprehensive Education
  Comprehensive Education
  Microelectronics in Education
  Microelectronics in Education
  School Examinations (Deposits)
  School Examinations (Deposits)
  Music Tuition
  Music Tuition
  Nursery Schools
  Nursery Schools
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Exmoor National Park (Agricultural Subsidies)
  Exmoor National Park (Agricultural Subsidies)
  Battery Hens
  Battery Hens
  FEOGA
  FEOGA
  Coypu
  Coypu
  Departmental Employees (Cars)
  Departmental Employees (Cars)
  Butter
  Butter
  Beef
  Beef
TRANSPORT
  Departmental Land (Bury St. Edmunds)
  Departmental Land (Bury St. Edmunds)
  Railway Track
  Railway Track
  Railways (North Wales)
  Railways (North Wales)
  Railway Electrification (West Midlands)
  Railway Electrification (West Midlands)
  Concessionary Bus Fares
  Concessionary Bus Fares
  Railways (Midland Line)
  Railways (Midland Line)
ENVIRONMENT
  Rent and Rate Rebates
  Rent and Rate Rebates
  Rate Collection (Rugby)
  Rate Collection (Rugby)
  Rate Support Grant
  Rate Support Grant
  Grant-related Expenditure
  Grant-related Expenditure
  Water Authorities
  Water Authorities
  Housing Statistics
  Housing Statistics
  Urban Programmes (Financial Allocation)
  Urban Programmes (Financial Allocation)
  Waste Paper
  Waste Paper
  Welsh Office (Tropical Plants)
  Welsh Office (Tropical Plants)
  Second Homes
  Second Homes
  Building Control Fees
  Building Control Fees

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

Africa: Co-ordination of Famine Relief Work
Baroness Vickers: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government, in view of the fact at least 2 million people in four African countries are facing starvation owing to drought, continuing civil wars and political unrest, what action is being taken to impress on the United Nations relief organisations the need for an operation to co-ordinate the many relief organisations.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, the United Nations and the voluntary organisations concerned are co-operating closely in the organisation of relief for those suffering in the Horn of Africa. Recent publicity over the supply of food for Karamoja has obscured the remarkable achievement of all concerned in saving three-quarters of a million people from starvation. Ministers have discussed co-ordination of current relief work with the Administrator of the United Nations Development Programme. Co-ordination of humanitarian assistance in general will be considered by the Economic and Social Council in July.
Baroness Vickers: My Lords, while I thank the Minister for that reply, is it not a pity that in the past there has not been better co-ordination? Can the noble Lord let me know how many voluntary organisations are working in this field and also the average number of deaths per year?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am afraid I have not got that last figure in front of me but, on the noble Baroness's other point, I can say that the Government have now contributed over £800,000 to the British voluntary agencies for relief work in Uganda. Of that, £500,000 was given to the Disasters Emergency Committee to be used principally for food, medicines and transport. We have also made a grant of £160,000 to assist the Save the Children Fund food transport operations in Karamoja. In addition—this is not quite what my noble friend asked me, but perhaps it will be helpful—the United Kingdom's share of European Community emergency aid amounts to a further £290,000.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, may I, though I appreciate the wonderful work which has been done by the voluntary agencies and the co-operation between them, ask the Minister whether Her Majesty's Government
1500
will support still further co-ordination when the subject is discussed in July? May I further ask whether the Government would support an international relief organisation with all equipment, so that it could act for the whole world under the United Nations, not only in Africa but in emergency cases like the earthquake in Italy?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, on the first point put to me by the noble Lord, we shall of course support any proposal to improve the arrangements for the response to these situations. On the second point, such an organisation already exists, I would suggest, in the United Nations Disaster Relief Organisation, whose primary concern is to co-ordinate the response to sudden natural disasters and other emergencies.
Lord Goronwy-Roberts: My Lords, will the Minister take note that, as the last supplementary question from the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, indicated, there is very strong support on this side for the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, and particularly as regards her inquiry about the extent of the suffering—indeed, the terminal suffering, as I understand her to say—arising from famine and related diseases in very many districts in each of these four countries? There is evidence that the situation is getting worse. May I therefore put this question: July is some time away and may result only in discussion and possible resolutions. Will the noble Lord therefore in the meantime press upon the Administrator, who is in turn supported by the Secretary General's special committee for this purpose, the need to co-ordinate and act even more effectively than has been done so far in anticipation of any decisions which may be arrived at by the July meeting?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, in answer to the first of the noble Lord's points, there were about 2 million people at least in the Horn of Africa who were thought to be at risk, and very nearly half those have certainly been relieved of the worst excesses of their plight. On the noble Lord's second point, we are considering urgently whether there is anything further we can do in the very short term, and an announcement is expected to be made shortly.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, have we not reached the rather tragic situation in which the United Nations has so committed itself to various ideological and political positions that the most useful service it could do would be to dissolve itself and get out of the way in order not to prevent help being given by other people who could then be organised to deal with these real and terrible grievances?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I cannot believe that that is a serious supplementary but, if it is, I would want to say that the record of success of the United Nations in the matter we are discussing this afternoon is a very fine one.
Baroness Hornsby-Smith: My Lords, would my noble friend not agree that in the long term it would really be for the betterment of these people if the United Nations and all the aid organisations interested

1501
would get together on a long-term plan for providing water? If that were done we should not get these perpetual droughts in the various countries and it would be the greatest service that we could give to the nations concerned.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the availability of a clean water supply is a vital feature of the development programmes of many of these areas and it is certainly uppermost in the minds of those involved with the British aid programme.
Lord Ritchie-Calder: My Lords, would the Minister not agree that one of the most important contributions we could make would be to reinforce the United Nations disaster agency? We have had the complaints. Why do we not see whether we can repair these complaints?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the United Nations Disaster Relief Organisation is primarily concerned, as I said earlier, to co-ordinate the response to sudden natural disasters, but it does become involved in longer-term emergency needs, such as this one, when it is specifically requested to do so by the UN Secretary-General. We think it is doing a good job so far.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, would the Minister agree that the United Nations voluntary fund, to which this country is the second biggest contributor, has done extremely valuable work in encouraging small projects which will prevent the starvation conditions? Does he also agree that we should continue to press other nations, as well as taking an interest in this project ourselves?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, following on from the answer I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Paget, it is certainly the case that we support the United Nations in projects of this kind, and things would be very much easier if other countries would give as much money as we do.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, can the noble Lord say to what extent he believes that these recurrent disasters are the result of bad weather, and to what extent they relate to local political inability? Can he also say whether helping to improve local political ability would be a great contribution, as well as giving relief?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I think that my noble friend Lady Hornsby-Smith put her finger on the problem when she referred to the water supply in this part of the world. Certainly, the lack of water is what seems to be the cause of so many droughts.
Lord Goronwy-Roberts: My Lords, with the indulgence of the House, may I intervene once more? We should be careful to press upon the Economic and Social Council the need to go forward with the essential long-term policies mentioned by the noble Baroness, while, at the same time, seeing to it that in the interim the essentially emergency nature of the disaster in these four countries is attended to with
1502
even greater enthusiasm than has been shown in the past.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I would certainly agree with both of those points. We certainly look forward to playing our part in the consultations in July, to which I referred. We are also considering, as I said earlier, what we can do urgently in the short-term.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, I think we should move on. We have been on this Question for nine minutes. But the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, has tried on several occasions to get up and it might be appropriate for him to put his question.
Lord Caradon: My Lords, arising from the discussion which is taking place this evening, would it be agreed by the Government that now, having partially met the immediate and urgent need, we should turn our attention to the long-term needs of this area which have been so badly neglected in the past, and should take an initiative in advance of July, through the United Nations development programme, for a long term project in that area?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the problems of Karamoja, apart from the climatic problems to which I referred earlier, stem from the long years of the Amin régime in that country. I cannot think that the problems will be solved overnight, but we shall certainly be ready to play our part.
Baroness Gaitskell: My Lords, may I ask the Minister—
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, with respect to the noble Baroness, I think it is the feeling of the House that we should move on to the next Question.

Retraining Programmes: Adult Education
3.17 p.m.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what part the adult education system plays in retraining programmes, so as to provide people of all ages with new skills and trades.
The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Baroness Young): My Lords, educational institutions provide opportunities for adults to continue their education at a variety of levels, from the most basic to postgraduate. Some are designed to develop attitudes, skills or qualifications of value generally in preparing to enter or re-enter employment; some to prepare more directly for particular types of employment; and others to extend or update the knowledge and skills of those already in employment.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, I am delighted to hear from my noble friend that this is a popular subject. I wonder whether there is anything more that can be done, because I have a feeling that this kind of training is very useful and that adult education colleges and classes are the ideal place for this to be done. I hope very much that more encouragement will be given to people and that more classes will be provided, if they are really wanted.
Baroness Young: My Lords, we recognise that educational institutions have a very important contribution to make in providing adults with the skills necessary to meet the needs of industry and commerce. We also recognise that, sometimes, they have not responded as quickly or as effectively as they might. We therefore issued for discussion last October a paper which sought to identify the problems and to suggest solutions, with a possible programme of action for improving the situation.
Baroness David: My Lords, is the Minister aware that some university departments of education are doing something quite positive about this? The Manchester department of adult education is setting up courses for professional people who have become unemployed, and the Nottingham department of adult education is also setting up short courses in new technology. Can it be hoped that the Government will give financial aid to these places, because adult education has been so appallingly treated in the way of cuts over the last several years?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I welcome the points that the noble Baroness made about the universities. I can confirm that we have maintained, in real terms, the level of direct funding to the WEA, to the extramural departments of universities, to the national associations of the National Federation of Women's Institutes and the National Union of Townswomen's Guilds and to the long-term residential colleges, all of which contribute to adult education.
Lord Davies of Leek: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that yesterday this House had an excellent debate on the problems of unemployment in the regions? It was made clear by both sides of the House, in particular by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, and others interested in education that there is great concern about training for new skills. Will the Government take note of that debate, during which constructive ideas were put forward, in the light of the question which has just been asked by the noble Baroness?
Baroness Young: Yes, of course, my Lords; we shall take note of the debate which took place yesterday in your Lordships' House. We are very well aware of the need for institutions to respond more readily to the demands of employers and also employees to update their skills and to retrain. It is partly to identify the best way forward that we have issued our consultative document.
Lord Hankey: My Lords, would the Government consider whether greater use could be made of the
1504
Open University, which has done such remarkably good work in recent years?
Baroness Young: Yes, my Lords; the Open University is used and is a valuable contributor.
Baroness David: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the fees for Open University courses have gone up considerably, which makes it very much more difficult for the unemployed to take advantage of courses?
Baroness Young: Yes, my Lords.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that the adult education sector is suffering more severe cuts than any other sector of the education system, and that in some local authority areas it has virtually disappeared? Does not this make nonsense of all the things which the noble Baroness has been agreeing to in this series of questions?
Baroness Young: No, my Lords; the formal programmes which are offered on behalf of the Manpower Services Commission are provided free of charge to the student, who also receives a significant allowance for undertaking the course. As the noble Lord will be aware, many of these courses take place in educational establishments. It is for authorities to determine the level of the fee that is charged for the general non-vocational courses that are provided for adults. Some courses are free, particularly those in basic skills such as literacy; but qualification-bearing courses, such as O- and A-level courses, have to charge a small fee, as also do courses with a direct vocational relevance. Other authorities charge what they believe to be appropriate for other non-vocational courses, and those charges can vary. But the average cost to the individual remains in the current year 41p per hour.

Home Affairs: Report of Select Committee
3.23 p.m.
Lord Gardiner: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is their attitude to the First Report of the Select Committee of the House of Commons on Home Affairs (H.C. 23).
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Belstead): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government will shortly be publishing their reply to the Select Committee's report.
Lord Gardiner: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that Answer, may I ask him first whether he accepts the facts stated in the opening of the report; namely, that during the past 10 years more than 40 reports by Royal Commissions or other committees appointed by the Government, and some 17 reports by Select Committees of the House of Commons, have

1505
been published on a variety of subjects falling wholly or partly within the responsibility of the Home Office? Secondly, may I ask the Minister whether he agrees with the statement made in paragraph 20 of the report, in which, referring to certain reports, they say that a great deal of time and effort as well as public money was devoted to the inquiries on which they were based and to their preparation?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I certainly accept the first part of the noble and learned Lord's supplementary, so far as it goes. But none of the reports quoted by the noble and learned Lord was commissioned by or reported to the present Government. None the less, the action taken on these reports has received the close attention of my right honourable friend. All these reports raise matters of major public policy, of concern to Parliament. As the House will know, pressure on parliamentary time is one of the main determinants of the speed at which action on reports can be taken. So far as the second part of the noble and learned Lord's supplementary is concerned, of course the Government appreciate the very great deal of time which is taken on preparing reports of committees which are set up, but I do not think we should forget that in appointing committees of inquiry Governments do not commit themselves to implementing those committees' proposals. Still less can one Government commit their successor.
Lord Gardiner: My Lords, would the noble Lord care to comment on the statement in paragraph 3? After referring to four particular groups of reports they say:
"The evidence we received"—
which I take it was from the Home Office—
"gave us a disturbing impression of the character of the department's response to the work of committees, which we can only describe as dilatory and complacent".
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I think that part of the report is based on a misunderstanding. The misunderstanding is that the report appears to criticise the Home Office as though it were in some way separate from the Government of the day. The present Government have accepted full responsibility for the handling of these matters since May 1979.
Baroness Wootton of Abinger: My Lords, can the Minister explain why, in addition to overlooking the advice they have received in the numerous reports referred to by the Select Committee, they are also cutting themselves off from future supplies of advice—as, for instance, by not reactivating the Advisory Council on the Penal System?
Lord Belstead: That is another question, my Lords.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, does not the Minister's reply to the original supplementary of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, confirm the impression given by this report from the Select Committee, that the Home Office suffers from the "not invented here" syndrome: that any proposals which are made from outside for reforms within the department's area of
1506
competence are virtually ignored or rejected? In particular, if we take the recommendations of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, would not the Minister agree that going back as far as 1974, before the original Select Committee inquiry, there were representations from practically every major organisation in the voluntary field that this law needed to be reformed because the boundaries were so totally arbitrary and that many organisations had to devote substantial intellectual resources simply to making sure that they kept within the narrow boundaries, which were laid down, of the definition of a charity?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, if I may pick from the fairly long supplementary which the noble Lord has asked me what in fact he is saying, as I understand it, it is that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary is inactive in these matters. There have been two recent reports which have very much affected the Home Office—that is to say, Ministers in the Home Office—under the present Government. The first was the Committee on Police Pay under the noble and learned Lord, Lord Edmund-Davies. Within a few days of its going to the Home Office, my right honourable friend implemented in full all the recommendations of that report and put them into effect. The second report which I have in mind is the report of Mr. Justice May on the future of the prison service. On the very day that that report was published, my right honourable friend accepted many of the recommendations and accepted in full and without question all the recommendations on pay and allowances for the prison service.
The noble Lord, however, mentioned one report which is referred to in this report of the Select Committee; namely, the report of the Goodman Committee—not, incidentally, a report made to the Government but a report made to the National Council of Voluntary Service. That report made certain recommendations on fiscal matters relating to charities which were, as many noble Lords know, put into effect by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Finance Bill of 1980.

IATA and Cheap Air Fares
3.29 p.m.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether British Airways can make a recommendation to the International Air Transport Association about the rules governing the availability of cheap air fares; and, if so, whether Government approval is necessary before any such recommendation can be made.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the International Air Transport Association is a trade association of airlines. Member airlines are entitled to make such proposals to the association as they wish. Her Majesty's Government's prior approval is not necessary.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether Her Majesty's Government's approval would be necessary if a recommendation were accepted by IATA before it was put into operation? Secondly, may I ask him whether he is aware of the difficulty that, whereas he told the House yesterday that the international community must break down its own bulwarks of protectionism, IATA has told the Government that it can do nothing in this matter because this Government will not use the law to deal with this particular practice. What does the Minister suggest that we should do?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I would say to all that that the noble Baroness is a little confused in her mind. So far as the adoption of IATA recommendations and the subsequent approval of Her Majesty's Government are concerned, the question of whether or not we would have to approve such a recommendation would depend upon what that recommendation was and whether it affected our international agreements, to which I referred at some length yesterday. As for IATA suggesting the cure to the problem which the noble Baroness has brought to my attention on so many occasions, the long-term cure to that problem, as I have said to her on, I think, each and every one of those occasions, is that we persuade our international partners to agree to a more competitive and realistic regime of air fares.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he is aware that, if I am confused, he is very dilatory in this particular matter? Is he aware that some 44 major airlines deal with this matter through their own bucket shops? And as these airlines would like the matter to be put on to a proper basis, so that these tickets were available to all travellers everywhere, what does this Government propose to do to help to bring that about?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the recommendation from IATA for a new régime of air fares, particularly on the European routes, is one that I have no doubt the Government would hasten to approve.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord why there is this hold up? Every time he very kindly gives an answer it is always the same one, namely, "We are waiting for IATA". Why cannot we, as members of IATA, as leaders in Europe, call a meeting of the IATA members to deal with this subject straight away, so that people are not breaking the law? What is so irritating is that people are breaking the law and one cannot do that in this country without being prosecuted, but in fact nobody is being prosecuted. Why cannot Her Majesty's Government call an IATA conference and get this matter straightened out once and for all?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the Government are not a member of IATA. We have no power to call a meeting of IATA, as my noble friend suggests. That is for the member airlines to do—British Airways, for example, as a member of IATA is entitled to do that, and indeed does—but the problem is that, once a meeting of IATA is called, for any conclusion to be effective
1508
there has to be a consensus within IATA and that has proved difficult to achieve.

Civil Service Dispute
3.33 p.m.
The Lord President of the Council (Lord Soames): My Lords, with the leave of the House I should like to make a Statement about the Civil Service dispute.
I want to take this opportunity to explain to the House and to the country the present situation regarding the threatened Civil Service strike on Monday. The Government have offered to non-industrial civil servants an increase of 7 per cent. from 1st April, together with a clear statement of our desire and intention to establish for the future a new, ordered and agreed system for determining Civil Service pay.
For 1981–82 all the public services are operating within cash limits set on the basis of factors of 6 per cent. for pay and 11 per cent. for prices. For the Civil Service, where the Government is the direct paymaster, it will be possible, albeit with considerable difficulty, to squeeze a pay increase of 7 per cent. from the resources available within the cash limit. That is simply as far as we can go. Other groups like the local authority manual workers and the teachers in England and Wales and in Scotland are settling at about the same level within the constraints imposed by the cash limit. It is evident from this that there is no question of discrimination against the Civil Service.
There are many people in private industry who would feel that such an offer at this time could be classed as a good one, given the general economic climate and the relative job security that civil servants enjoy.
I know that civil servants are concerned as much about future arrangements for determining Civil Service pay as they are about this year's cash offer. In August last year I explained to the union leaders that, given the overriding need in the broad national interest for increases in pay to be very restricted, the emphasis in 1981 would have to be on cash limits, reflecting what the Government felt the nation could afford. It was not therefore possible for the Government to operate the existing pay research arrangements in the normal way and in October I suspended them.
A further cause for concern is the pay research system itself, which is now more than 25 years old. Over the years it has become top heavy and cumbersome and somewhat mechanistic in its operations. It no longer commands general confidence. What is now needed is a thorough overhaul—and this is something I believe to be recognised by the unions as well as by ourselves.
I recognise that civil servants fear that the imposition of increases based on cash limits this year, coupled with the suspension of the present arrangements for pay research, could mean that the Government intend that Civil Service pay should be imposed by fiat each year. But this is not the case. I told the union leaders on 23rd February—and I quote:
"The Government intend to review the arrangements for determining the pay of non-industrial civil servants with the object of establishing as soon as practicable an ordered and agreed system which takes account of all relevant factors and which will command the widest possible acceptance".

1509
Evidently that review has to take place before we can see clearly how the new system will be shaped. We have made every effort to clarify the Government's position and, so far as possible at this stage, to explain our intentions to the union leaders. Recognising their concern about such matters as independent fact-finding, comparisons with terms and conditions of service outside, and arbitration, we have made clear to them that these as well as other relevant factors like job security would be covered in the review. We will welcome further discussions as the review proceeds.
The Government therefore find it hard to understand how in these circumstances the union leaders justify their recourse to the extreme step of recommending industrial action to their members. I hope that the union leaders will think it in the best interests of the Civil Service for them to concentrate on making their contribution to the thinking on the new system rather than calling for industrial action from which the country is bound to suffer.
Lord Peart: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord for his Statement. I agree with his latter remarks but I should like to put some questions to him. When I was in that position, in charge and with the same responsibilities, I was always ready to answer questions which came from the Benches behind me. First, why are the Government, who are opposed to pay policy, imposing one on one of the most reasonable and responsible groups in the country? I deplore the action that is being taken but I still believe that common sense can prevail if there are more meetings and negotiations. Then I should like to know what is the new and ordered and agreed system for determining civil service pay? How is it going to differ from pay research and a principle of fair comparison? That was the system which we built up over a long period of time. Finally, will this review and the new system be operative for the 1982 Civil Service pay settlement? Those are the few questions to which I should like to have answers.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, from these Benches we should like to join in thanking the noble Lord the Leader of the House for having made the Statement. Our main feeling is one of great regret that members of the Civil Service should be contemplating strike action, in view of their very special responsibilities to the state. We are anxious, as always on these occasions, to say nothing that would make the situation in any degree worse. On the main issue of the overall increase in pay to be granted, I think that on behalf of my noble friends I should offer the Government our support and join with them in their plea to the union leaders, even at this late stage, to withdraw the recommendation that their members should take industrial action and instead ask them to join with the Government in trying to work out some new arrangements for pay determination within the service.
There is just one question which is somewhat troubling us. Is the noble Lord satisfied that the salary structure within the Civil Service in terms of differentials within the various grades is altogether appropriate, and to the extent that he may not be satisfied can he assure us that this matter, too, is receiving his urgent attention?
Lord Soames: My Lords, may I thank both noble Lords for their, on the whole, welcome for the Statement I have made, and particularly Lord Rochester for his support for what we have said. To answer him first, on his question about differentials, I do not think differentials are ever altogether right, and this situation has not perhaps been helped by the fact that there was a pay research system which recommended pay levels for the Civil Service as a whole and then there was the TSRB, a different body, which recommended the pay levels for the higher echelons. This is the same problem as exists in the Services as well. Differentials have been a problem, and it is something which undoubtedly we must consider.
In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Peart, he says that we have been strict in imposing pay limits on the Civil Service and asks why have we done that. As I think I said in my statement, we have imposed cash limits upon the pay of not only the Civil Service but also the National Health Service, and, where the Government are concerned with their rates support grant, on local authorities as well. This is, of course, because we believe it to be in the national interest. Pay is a very high proportion of total Government expenditure, particularly in these fields. Further, I am sure it has not escaped the noble Lord that pay increases generally in this round since September have been on average under 9 per cent. So again I say I cannot see sufficient of a difference here. There have been many settlements indeed well below 7 per cent., and many have been very glad to have any at all. I think it was the Government's duty, and their responsibility to the country in the present economic times, to keep pay increases to the public services within strict limits, and that is the answer.
The noble Lord asked whether the new system will be in place by 1982. This was a question the unions asked me. I hope the House will understand when I say that we are launching ourselves into a review of the present system. The noble Lord says it has served us well over 25 years; but it has become frightfully technical and mechanistic. I think everybody, the unions and the Government and indeed the country as a whole, has slightly lost confidence in the system as it is. We need to take a fresh look at it and how it works. The last thing I want to do is to give any assurance that I could not live up to by assuring noble Lords that the new arrangements would be ready by 1982; but we will not let the grass grow under our feet.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, during my noble friend's discussions with the Civil Service, did the Civil Service ask why they should be set cash limits when the Armed Forces and the police were not set any such limits?
Lord Soames: My Lords, the answer to my noble friend is that this question did arise. I think it is recognised generally that the Armed Services and the police are a special case. They run considerable personal risks and dangers. Also the Armed Services and police are required to abide by a discipline code and to obey orders. This is a different situation.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, is it not also the case that they are both considerably under strength?
Lord Soames: My Lords, I am not sufficiently cognisant of the exact figures to reply to that point at the moment. I am not sure about the police. I think the Armed Services certainly are.

London Transport (No. 2) Bill
Read 2a, and committed to a Select Committee.

European Assembly Elections Bill
3.44 p.m.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, that the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Belstead.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[THE LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Amendment of Schedule 2 to the European Assembly Elections Act 1978]:
Lord Banks Lord Banks moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 7, after ("shall") insert (", until 1st May 1984 or such earlier date as a uniform electoral system is adopted throughout the European Communities necessitating different procedures,").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 1, and with the leave of the Committee to speak also to Amendment No. 2. Both these amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, and myself are in similar terms. The Bill provides for a review of European constituencies by the Boundaries Commission to be carried out after a review of Westminster constituencies and not simultaneously, as is the case at the moment. The first amendment qualifies the provision for a general review of European constituencies after a general review of Westminster constituencies, and the second amendment qualifies the provision for a review of affected European constituencies after a review of particular Westminster constituencies.
The amendments would ensure that the provision for the proposed review of European constituencies would in each case cease to operate from 1st May, 1984, that is just before the next European elections, or at such earlier date as a uniform electoral system throughout the Community is adopted. As I said during the Second Reading debate, we on these Benches object to a European Assembly Elections Bill at this time which completely ignores the commitment entered into by all member countries that the next elections to the European Parliament should be by a uniform system throughout the Community. The Labour Government in 1976 signed a Council of Minister's decision providing that the directly-elected European Parliament should draw up a uniform system for 1984. Both the Labour and the Conservative Members of Parliament on the Select Committee in another place put forward as the first argument for using the first-past-the-post system in 1979 in Britain that:
1512
"If the United Kingdom were to change the electoral system for the first round of elections of the European Assembly the electoral system would have to be changed twice within a comparatively short period".
That is in paragraph 16 of the second report of the Select Committee on Direct Elections, published in August 1976.
The single-member European constituency was clearly regarded as a temporary expedient, and a pretty disastrous one it turned out to be. The single-member European constituencies of the size involved were bound to lead to gross distortion, and they certainly did. The Conservative Party with 50 per cent. of the votes got 77 per cent. of the seats. The Labour Party with 33 per cent. of the votes got 22 per cent. of the seats. The Liberal Party with 13 per cent. of the votes got no seats. The Labour and Liberal Parties together with 46 per cent. of the votes got 22 per cent. of the seats. This not only distorted the United Kingdom representation; of course it distorted the whole balance of the party political groups within the European Parliament. It was, therefore, a matter of concern not merely in this country but in other member countries as well.
This must not happen again. The case for a proportional system for Europe is overwhelming, and that is agreed by many of those who still continue to oppose proportional representation for Westminster. I am aware that it is for the European Parliament to propose the new uniform system and for the Council of Ministers to approve it. The Government may well say—and it seemed to me that this was what the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, was saying during the Second Reading debate—that they must wait and see what is produced by the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers. However, I hope that the Government's attitude will be more positive than that and that they will not be content with a passive attitude.
Mr. Brittan, the Minister of State at the Home Office, said in another place on 3rd December 1980 at col. 534 of the Official Report:
"We are in favour of a uniform system".
I welcome that. I wish that he had added, "and we believe that it should be based on proportional representation". But at least he said that the Government were in favour of a new uniform system. I very much hope that the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, will confirm that this afternoon when he comes to reply to the amendment.
These amendments take account of the commitment to have a uniform system for the 1984 elections. Accordingly, they would necessitate fresh legislation dealing with the review of European constituencies from 1st May 1984 or from any earlier date upon which a uniform system is agreed and adopted. The amendments would oblige the Government to come to Parliament before the 1984 elections to secure fresh legislation to cover the procedure for the review of European constituencies under the new circumstances. More important, perhaps, if by any chance there were no uniform system agreed and adopted, the Government would still be obliged to come to Parliament and to explain to Parliament why that was so and where the blame lay. I think that there is a case for placing this obligation on the Government and I beg to move.
Lord Kennet: I do not know whether it is customary for a co-sponsor of an amendment to speak before the Front Bench. If that is not so, then I apologise. I am a little confused because I am speaking for the first time as a Social Democrat and students of parliamentary ecology among your Lordships will have noticed that the new fauna has not yet established a habitat! We do not know where to sit and we are slightly scattered around. I am afraid that that must be an inconvenience to everyone else and, as much as we intend to create inconvenience for the major parties in two or three years' time, I should like to assure the Committee and the House that we do not wish to create inconvenience now by sitting on anybody's favourite perch because we did not know that it was his favourite perch. We hope to get this all sorted out tidily as soon as possible.
I should like to say that it is a pleasure for me to have the chance of taking part in the first joint Motion between the Liberals and the Social Democrats in this House, indeed, I believe—unless something surprising has happened in the House of Commons this afternoon—in either House of Parliament. The noble Lord, Lord Banks, has expressed the reasons for this amendment with sufficient clarity for the whole Committee and I should like to add only a tiny bit of background.
The Bill binds the Boundary Commission—even if later than originally intended—to come back with proposals for the improvement of single-member constituencies for the European Parliament which will, by the decision already taken by this Government and all the other Governments in the Community, be out-of-date by that time. The noble Lord, Lord Banks, put the situation very politely. He invited the Government to do what they could to ensure that the uniform system would be one based on PR. There is not the least chance of it being based on anything else. We are the only country out of the ten which has an electoral system which is not based on PR. Therefore, if there is to be a uniform system among 10 countries it will resemble that in use in nine of them more closely than it will resemble that in use in one—so much is obvious.
We may perhaps ask whether there is not a trace of provocation in the way in which the Government have drafted this Bill in saying, "We do not care about the obvious fact in the future that European PR is coming. We shall go blinding straight ahead with British first-past-the-post single member constituencies. Even if we have to legislate to change the details of the single member arrangements we shall do so in such a way as to preclude the adoption of PR at the next European election even if all the other nine have it". I know, of course, that the Government would never knowingly or purposely adopt a wrecking posture towards any European Community initiative. I think that the way out of the possible appearance of that as being what is happening would be if the Government were able to adopt this amendment. Without the amendment the following events must happen; a Boundary Commission report on the Westminster constituencies, as usual; and later a Boundary Commission report on the European constituencies which will be single member maxi-constituencies like the last time round. If we adopt the amendment there will be a Boundary Commission report on Westminster con-
1514
stituencies, as usual; and a Boundary Commission report on the single member Euro-constituencies if—and only if—by bad luck there is no uniform provision yet available at that date.
What are the chances? It is true that things have not yet gone very far in the Community. There has been one report which has been submitted to the Political Committee of the European Parliament, which is the agreed procedure. It was drawn up largely with the help of M. Jean Rey, formerly President of the Commission and it is, I understand, very vague and seeks laudably but perhaps implausibly to combine the single member system, to please Britain, with a transferable vote system, to please everybody else. Indeed, I believe that the transferable vote element could have been pitched under his proposals anywhere between 5 and 50 per cent. and that is hardly rigid. Vague as it is, even that is not going forward very fast and has not yet come forth from the bosom of the Political Committee of the Parliament to the Parliament itself in Strasbourg.
One can only wish the European parliamentarians luck and hope that they do come to an arrangement which will prove satisfying to the Nine—and that should not be too difficult. One can only wish that the British Government of the day—which I hope will be this Government because I think that we should all want a uniform arrangement before the next election in this country—will have the imagination, the friendliness and the flexibility to go along with what comes out of the European Parliament for the proposals the next time round.
Lord Underhill: It is not for me on behalf of these Benches necessarily to help the Government with the passage of this Bill, although as was made quite clear on Second Reading, we shall not oppose it because the principle of the Bill—and it is really only a one-clause Bill—has been approved by the other place. If my memory serves me correctly, only a few noble Lords were present when we discussed this matter on Second Reading, but what was said on that occasion will have been read in the Official Report. Therefore, I shall not go into all the arguments as to why we were critical of the Bill. The main point concerned the decisions taken and the views expressed when the original Bill was carried in 1978 and also we regard the shape of the European constituencies as equally important as the shape of the parliamentary constituencies.
However, I must say that it would appear that the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Banks, is frankly—to put it colloquially—jumping the gun. Parliament made quite clear that it wanted the last elections on the basis of first-past-the-post with single member constituencies. At this juncture we do not know what the European Assembly or subsequently the Council of Ministers will decide. We have no idea whether they will agree on a uniform system. The Council of Ministers has been known to fall out. Therefore, nobody can be sure about what will come out eventually. It could even happen that the Council of Ministers might eventually decide that discussions for a uniform system should be put off until the elections after the next ones—in other words, to 1989. Nobody knows.
Although the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, said that he

1515
did not wish to inconvenience certain groups in this Committee, this could inconvenience the Parliamentary machine. First, if there is to be a change in the present electoral system, there will need to be primary legislation. It cannot be dealt with in this Bill. There will have to be a new Bill. Parliament will have to decide on what will be the form of the new electoral system if the Council of Ministers should recommend a uniform system. But if this amendment were passed and there were no recommendation from the Council of Ministers for a uniform system, then we should be in a jam because this Bill would say that after May 1984 there would be no more reviews by the Parliamentary Boundaries Commission. Therefore, there would have to be another amending Bill to put the position right. Considerable inconvenience would have been caused to the legislative machine. For those simple reasons, we could not support these amendments.
4.2 p.m.
Lord Belstead: I appreciate the wish of the noble Lords, Lord Banks and Lord Kennet, who have moved this amendment and are speaking to both amendments that a new electoral system for the election of United Kingdom representatives to the European Parliament should be introduced. But I think it may be of assistance if I just describe the procedures which might be involved in the introduction of a uniform system. Article 138(3) of the European Community Treaty provides that it is for the European Parliament to,
"draw up proposals for elections by direct universal suffrage in accordance with a uniform procedure in all Member States".
The Treaty provides that the Council of Ministers, acting unanimously, shall,
"lay down the appropriate provisions which it shall recommend to Member States for adoption in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements".
The noble Lord, Lord Banks, really referred to that, but I venture to do so again in a little more detail because the noble Lord gave it as his opinion that we must not take a passive attitude in the United Kingdom. With respect, I do not think that there is any question here of taking a passive attitude on behalf of Her Majesty's Government. The Treaty of Rome provides in simple terms for a uniform system, but the Government must await any proposals which the European Parliament may put to the Council of Ministers on that uniform electoral system. That really is why the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, said that the amendments are jumping the gun. I cannot of course anticipate the Government's attitude in advance of any such proposals, but I can assure the Committee that we shall give them full and careful consideration and will take into account opinion in this Parliament and in the country. I should certainly expect that there would be wide-ranging debate on any proposal to introduce a system of proportional representation into our electoral system. This would clearly be a radical change, and one which would require careful study.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, spoke of the Government appearing to be going ahead with their arrangements for voting procedures without having regard to the future machinery for bringing in a uniform system.
1516
Here again I do not think that that is quite fair. If a change in our procedures for electing representatives to the European Parliament were thought to be appropriate following the recommendations coming from Europe, substantive primary legislation would be required. This would at least give Parliament a further opportunity to review the procedures for boundary reviews set out in Schedule 2 to the European Assembly Elections Act 1978, as amended by this Bill.
At this stage—and I am really repeating what the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, said—it is impossible to predict when any such major legislation would be brought forward. But I can say that the introduction of new voting arrangements would be subject to very tight timing considerations if it were intended to operate them for the next election of representatives in June 1984. Incidentally, in case there is any misunderstanding, the noble Lord, Lord Banks, quoted my right honourable friend, Mr. Leon Brittan, at the time when he was Minister of State at the Home Office, and the noble Lord construed Mr. Brittan's words as being in favour of a uniform system. I think that my right honourable friend was at that time referring to the Government favouring a uniform system for the election of representatives from Great Britain and Northern Ireland. He was not using those words in quite the context that I think the noble Lord believed.
Having said that as an aside, I shall go on. In the meantime—in other words, between now and 1984—the Government think it right, for the reasons that I have been giving, to continue to make proper arrangements for the conduct of elections under the existing systems; the simple majority system in Great Britain, and the single transferable vote method of proportional representation in Northern Ireland. But this is not, I assure the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, because we are refusing to look at any other proposals. The proposals have not yet come from Europe.
As I understand the amendments, the effect of them would be that the review of European Parliament constituencies consequential on an Order in Council giving effect to revised Westminster constituencies need only be considered by the Boundary Commissions until 1st May 1984, or until a uniform electoral system were adopted throughout the European Community, whichever was the sooner. Under the provisions of this Bill as it stands, the Boundary Commissions will consider the composition of European Parliament constituencies after Orders in Council have been made giving effect to changes in Westminster constituencies, and will submit their reports to the Secretary of State as soon as may be thereafter. Irrespective of any progress towards the introduction of any new electoral system, it is certainly the Government's hope that the next European Parliament elections will be fought on the basis of new boundaries revised to take account of changes in the Westminster constituencies.
But, if the Boundary Commissions' work is not completed and the appropriate Orders in Council have not had time to be made, the next European elections will have to be fought on the existing boundaries, defined by reference to the present Westminster Parliament constituencies. I believe that it will be necessary to take a view considerably earlier than May 1984, which would be just one month before the next general election of European representatives, as to the bound-

1517
aries which are to be used. A month hardly leaves sufficient time for the constituencies to be promulgated by Orders in Council, and for the parties to select their candidates and fight proper campaigns. The Government will need to take a view in the light of the progress of the Boundary Commissions some time before then, and advise Parliament, the returning officers and the political parties accordingly.
Having said that, I repeat that it is very much the hope that the work of the Boundary Commissions will be completed in good time for the next European Assembly elections. While, therefore, this has been a useful exchange of views and may have helped to clarify certain aspects of the Bill for the benefit of the Committee, I hope that noble Lords will accept that the amendments could create difficulties and will perhaps consider withdrawing them in the end.
4.9 p.m.
Lord Ferrier: The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, said that this amendment is, in a measure jumping the gun, which was rather confirmed by my noble friend in what he said. Anyone who has carefully studied the report of the Hansard Society's Commission on Electoral Reform will recall that the final recommendation is that there should be some form of electoral reform. I entirely agree with that—I am not suggesting there should not be electoral reform—but I question whether this is the moment to forestall any debate such as my noble friend indicated and which is bound to come when we talk about future electoral reform.
There are many varieties of proportional representation. They differ in the ways your Lordships know, and there is a large body of opinion in the country which is not in favour of PR, and in a rather pragmatic way I feel that, if many people do not want PR but if everybody wants electoral reform, we should perhaps give some attention to the double ballot system which in some measure is accepted in other parts of Europe. Could we adapt it to our needs in a satisfactory way, in that, unlike some measures of PR, it insists on the single member constituency, which in my view is a main essential of our electoral position? For that reason I feel with respect to the noble Lords, Lord Banks and Lord Kennet, that it is not the time to accept the amendment but that it is the time when thought might be given to some measure of electoral reform which is not necessarily proportional representation—namely, an adaptation of the double ballot system. For that reason, I shall oppose the amendment.
4.13 p.m.
Lord Banks: I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this discussion of what I believe is an important and urgent matter. I welcome the cooperation to which the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, referred between these Benches and Benches not yet quite identified but to which he gave the name Social Democrat, and we are pleased to have been able to produce the first act of co-operation between the two in your Lordships' House today. The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, spoke about the progress being made in the European Parliament and made it clear that, although that might be slow, it was nevertheless important to
1518
make provision for the uniform system which at present we are all committed to produce before 1984.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, thought we were jumping the gun by putting forward this series of amendments, but if they were put into practice it would not prevent the present system from continuing; it would only prepare for the possibility of the uniform system, and since we are committed to a uniform system it seems sensible to prepare for what we are actually committed to now rather than to assume that that will not happen, as seems to be the implication in the Bill as it stands.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, asked whether we should do anything because nothing might come out of all that is going on at the moment. It is true that nothing might come out of it, but I repeat that we are committed to it and it seems sensible to work on the assumption that the things to which we are committed will happen, and to make provision for them. I would remind the noble Lord that it was a Labour Government who signed the decision of the Council of Ministers in 1976 that Parliament should be asked to produce a plan on the uniform basis for the 1984 elections.
I do not think there is any reason to suppose the council will go back on that decision. If they did, there would then be a new situation of which we should have to take account, and we should not have got ourselves in any difficulty by adopting these amendments. Nor do I think we should be in any jam if there were no uniform system. It would, as the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, said, involve a further amending Bill, but this one has not occupied your Lordships to any great extent and I do not think your Lordships' House or the other place would be unduly inconvenienced if we had a new amending Bill in a few years' time.
The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, worried me rather when he seemed to be back-pedalling on what I had taken as a firm commitment from the Government, that they were in favour of a uniform system, but in view of his reference to the decision of the Council of Ministers at an earlier stage, I understand that the Government would not wish to depart from that decision, that they uphold it and that to that extent they are committed to a uniform system. The Minister referred to the difficulty of being left with only one month, if the amendment were put into practice—between 1st May and the beginning of June 1984—in which to make all the alterations. Of course, that is merely put in as the last date; it is not a reasonable time for a Government to make the provision, and they could make the provision at any time that the uniform system was introduced.
There has been a good deal of talk in this debate about proportional representation. I took part in that, I certainly believe the uniform system should be proportional and I am glad we had a discussion about that, but that is not implied in the amendments; they refer to a uniform system on whatever basis that might be. The noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, referred to the double ballot system which is used in Germany. That produces a form of PR, so that would not be ruled out if we decided that the uniform system should be proportional.
It was important this afternoon that the commitment to a uniform system in 1984 should be underlined, and

1519
that has been done. From what the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, said, we can deduce that the Government are still fully committed to that. It is important too that the need for a proportional system, although not immediately related to the amendments, should once again be stressed, as it has been in this debate. Bearing in mind that those two points have been driven home, and bearing in mind the various difficulties which the Minister foresaw if the amendment were accepted, I will not press it but beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 2 not moved.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.

European Communities (Medical, Dental and Nursing Professions) (Linguistic Knowledge) Order 1981
4.19 p.m.
Baroness Young Baroness Young rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 11th February be approved.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move that the European Communities (Medical, Dental and Nursing Professions) (Linguistic Knowledge) Order 1981, be approved. If your Lordships approve, the effect of this order and its associated administrative guidance will be to ensure that doctors, dentists and nurses from the European Community cannot practise in the National Health Service unless they can communicate effectively in English with patients and with colleagues.
I must stress to your Lordships that the change here proposed—from a registration to an employment-linked language requirement—has neither the intention nor the effect of departing from the principle that people in health professions must be capable of accurate and vital communication with each other and with patients. We do not regard that as negotiable with any body, whether national or international. We simply propose changing the point of its application in respect of a small minority of practitioners.
The Government accept that the proposed new arrangements are necessary to meet their obligations under Community law. Essentially, the formal view of the Commission of the European Community is that the Treaty of Rome bars us from making knowledge of English an absolute condition of continuing registration of European Community health professionals, because this constitutes a restriction on their freedom of movement. However, the Community regulation of freedom of movement of workers, which has direct effect in member states, does permit employers to impose:
"conditions, where appropriate, as to linguistic knowledge required by reason of the nature of the post to be filled".
Thus health authorities and private employers in this country do not need new powers in order to carry out the responsibility. Nothing in Community law
1520
relieves them of it, nor prevents them from carrying it out. They have not in the past needed to exercise the competence that they have to ensure that prospective employees have the necessary knowledge of English, because they could rely on the link between linguistic ability and registration. Nevertheless we intend simultaneously to issue firm comprehensive guidance to employing and contracting authorities advising them of the administrative arrangements which will ensure that Community obligations are reconciled with the even more vital commitment to maintain the highest possible safeguards for patients. The order before your Lordships will not stand alone.
Statutory provision is, however, necessary to cover NHS general medical and dental practitioners. Despite their contractual status within the service, we have indicated to the Commission that their position resembles that of employees rather than of wholly independent self-employed professionals to whom the Community regulations that I have already mentioned could not apply. As I have said, the Government accept that the measure before your Lordships is necessary to discharge our obligations to the Community, but let us keep a sense of proportion about what is involved. It will affect only a small minority of professionals who come here to work. The scale of migration from countries within the European Community is very modest: since 1977 to date, 449 European Community doctors (other than those qualified in Ireland) have been registered in the United Kingdom. The equivalent figure for nurses in 1979–80 was 35—that was for nine months of that year—and for dentists it is only seven since June 1980. There is no reason to suppose that the present order will lead to any increase in numbers.
We have of course consulted the health professions on the proposed changes, and I know that in general they would prefer that language requirements should continue to be linked with registration for all who come here to work. I respect that view. The virtue of a standardised objective and comprehensive procedure administered by a central body is self evident, and these are just the arrangements that will continue to apply to the vast majority of overseas qualified doctors who wish to work in the NHS. I am pleased to be able to tell your Lordships that, notwithstanding its preference for treating all practitioners alike, the General Medical Council has agreed to make its central language testing facilities available to health authorities in respect of doctors from member states, and that is one of the points that we shall follow up in the administrative guidance to authorities to which I have already referred. The cost of such tests should of course be borne by the people who wish to come here to practise; they would not be a charge on health authorities.
Before turning to the order itself, I should like to make some remarks on two points which have already caused comment in another place. The first concerns the difference in treatment between those who qualified inside the Community and those who did so outside it, and the second relates to private practice. I have already pointed out the limited scope of the order, in that the employment-linked language requirements will apply only to Community nationals—necessarily, because of the power under which it is made. For other people from overseas the registration link will continue to apply. For doctors, this link was finally achieved

1521
by common consensus in the Medical Act 1978, and change would require primary legislation. I really would not expect the public, nor the profession, to welcome its wholesale abandonment when there is no need for doing so. I have already mentioned the evident virtues of a centrally imposed requirement. For European Community practitioners, we propose some changes—in method, but not in objective—in pursuance of our obligations under Community law. That does not mean that the safeguards imposed in respect of other overseas qualified doctors are rendered less necessary, nor does it prove that they should be abolished.
In practice, the new arrangements offer no significant advantage to Community nationals, since all overseas qualified doctors wishing to work in the NHS will still be subject to a language requirement. In fact there is even a tightening-up, since a European practitioner will no longer have the six months' period of grace after registration in which to satisfy the General Medical Council of his knowledge of English—a concession not available to other overseas qualified doctors. There was always an outside chance that a European Community doctor could enter NHS general practice in an open area during such a six-months' period. Now he will have to demonstrate his knowledge of English at the outset. Many would see the existing registration-linked requirement as an advantage, since, once it is satisfied, a doctor can move between employment without on each occasion having to prove his linguistic ability.
Finally, we are making efforts to reduce the administrative burden on health authorities. To impose on them the onerous task of applying employment-linked language requirements to the very much greater number of overseas-qualified practitioners would, especially when there is no need to do so, be most irresponsible.
As for private practice, it is quite true that it is our obligation to our Community partners to allow any suitably qualified practitioner from another member state to establish himself in the United Kingdom without creating any obstacle to registration. By the same token, however, we expect other member states to accord that treatment to our own suitably qualified nationals. Certainly, European Community practitioners coming, or proposing to come, here will be advised of their professional responsibility to acquaint themselves with the language and of the consequences of failure to do so. In reality, it is unlikely that a practitioner who could not communicate effectively would be accepted into a private partnership, and, if he planned to practise alone, his employers would be his patients. It is even less likely—and this is, I understand, a view shared by other member states—that he would succeed in attracting fee-paying patients in competition with those practitioners who could communicate effectively.
Turning to the order itself, this is a United Kingdom measure, made under Section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972. It arises from our obligations under Community law, and its scope is restricted to Community nationals. Article 1 is formal, and Article 2 repeals enactments which require European Community nationals who qualified in a member state as doctors, dentists or nurses to satisfy the appropriate registration body as to their knowledge
1522
of English on or within six months of registration in the United Kingdom.
Article 3 inserts a new subsection 1A in Section 30 of the National Health Service Act 1977. I should perhaps explain that at present family practitioner committees are obliged to forward all applications for inclusion in the medical list to the Medical Practices Committee, the central body which decides on the distribution of general practice. But the Medical Practices Committee is not itself the contracting authority and therefore, in respect of doctors from the Community it is the family practitioner committees and not the Medical Practices Committee, which need to be satisfied that potential practitioners have the knowledge of English which is necessary in their own and their patients' interests. The new subsection precludes a doctor who is a national and who qualified in a member state from having his application for inclusion in a medical list forwarded to the Medical Practices Committee unless he so satisfies the relevant family practitioner committee. A consequential amendment is made to Section 33(5) of the Act precluding a right of appeal against refusal of an application by the Medical Practices Committee.
Article 3 goes on to add a new subsection (2) to Section 36 of the 1977 Act, so as to provide that a dentist who is a national and who qualified in a member state, shall be included in a dental list only if he satisfies the family practitioner committee as to his knowledge of English. Articles 4 and 5 make for Scotland and Northern Ireland respectively similar provision to that made by Article 3 for England and Wales.
The purpose of the order before your Lordships is to meet the requirements of Community law by practical measures involving the minimum of bureaucratic fuss, consistent with the well-being of patients and the professions. I have said that the measures are twofold. There is the order, and there will be firm administrative guidance to the National Health Service which will make clear to the employing and contracting authorities the extent of their responsibilities within the changes that are proposed. Health authorities have well-established appointments procedures, which they will need to adjust so as to require European Community applicants to give evidence of knowledge of English, and to ensure that they demonstrate it at interview. Family practitioner committees will need to make similar arrangements, and this subject will be included in the guidance which is at present under discussion.
This implies some additional work for the authorities, but, against that, by highlighting the language element in the selection of staff the right of authorities to choose people best suited to the local environment and needs is reinforced rather than diminished. With regard to our own United Kingdom doctors and dentists, I am advised that to confine the effect of this legislation to Community nationals other than our own would constitute discrimination in the latter's favour. The practical effect of this in my view is insignificant, since it will be for family practitioner committees, or their Scottish and Northern Ireland equivalents, to determine how to satisfy themselves about the applicant's knowledge of English. They will therefore be free to accept evidence of a United Kingdom or Irish qualification as sufficient.
My Lords, I have devoted much of my time to reference to the medical profession; but the order also applies to dentists and nurses. With regard to the former the numbers affected, as I have already indicated, are small indeed, and the General Dental Council does not at present impose a standard language test on European Community dentists, but relies instead on interviews and relevant qualifications to provide evidence of knowledge of English. In future it will be for health authorities and family practitioner committees to conduct such interviews and to apply any more formal language test in addition, if they so wish, in respect of European Community dentists who apply for a post or entry to a dental list in this country. In respect of the nursing profession, I understand that the General Nursing Council for England and Wales is now finalising a test that can be applied to all overseas qualified nurses, and it is envisaged that the test will be available to NHS authorities in respect of nurses from the European Community.
In conclusion, I can assure your Lordships that NHS authorities will be encouraged to apply standards no less exacting than registration bodies now apply to them. They will even be free to impose a tougher standard if they feel the job requires it. Flexibility to fit people in particular jobs may in some circumstances be helpful to employers who need bilingual staff. I commend the order to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 11th February be approved—(Baroness Young.)
4.33 p.m.
Lord Wells-Pestell: My Lords, we are obviously very grateful to the noble Baroness the Minister for introducing this order in some detail. It is an order of some importance, although I am inclined to say that it perhaps tends to conceal more than it reveals. We on this side of your Lordships' House are not very happy about it. I do not want to go into it at very great length because I happen to know that two or three of my noble friends will want to make a contribution, and I have some idea of the field that they may cover.
We on this side of your Lordships' House are agreed that it is of supreme importance that doctors and nurses and dentists coming from EEC countries must be able to speak English and be understood, and be able to communicate with patients and with colleagues. This is obviously a matter of very great importance. What concerns me at the moment is that, although the order is called the European Communities (Medical, Dental and Nursing Professions) (Linguistic Knowledge) Order 1981, I do not see in the order where in fact it refers to nurses, except in what I would call Article 2, which deals with the repeal of English language requirements for medical and dental practitioners and nurses. Unless I have not been reading it correctly, there seems to be no reference to nurses anywhere else apart from that particular article; and this seems to us to be of supreme importance.
As the noble Baroness said at the very beginning, we had an order, which was known as the Medical Qualifications (EEC Recognition) Order 1977, under which a doctor or a dentist coming from any of the
1524
EEC countries could register for a period of six months, and during those six months he or she had to satisfy the General Medical Council that he or she could speak English sufficiently clearly to be understood and able to converse with colleagues. If at the end of six months the doctor coming from the EEC country was not able to do that, I believe I am right in saying that the registration lapsed.
We have a situation now where this matter has been cleared up in this order, I think from the point of view of the doctors and dentists in a satisfactory way, except that we have had to concede to the EEC that we have no right to impose a linguistic test at the point of registration. But apparently we have found a way round that, because the noble Baroness said that it could be linked to employment. Her honourable friend the Minister of Health said in another place on 24th February 1981:
"However, the Community regulation on freedom of movement of workers, which has a direct effect in member states, permits employers to"—
and then he himself quotes—
"'impose conditions, where appropriate, as to linguistic knowledge required by reason of the nature of the post to be filled'."— [Official Report, Commons. 24/2/81; col. 836.]
So it can be applied, presumably, outside the medical profession. But I should like to know (and I know that my noble friends would like to know) where that quotation is taken from, because he gives no indication as to where it comes from.
As I say, I am not really concerned with the position of doctors and dentists because I feel that this regulation, from our point of view, ties it up very firmly and without any (shall I say?) difficulty at all. But what does concern me is the position of nurses coming to this country. The noble Baroness, as did her honourable friend the Minister of State in another place, said that the scale of migration from countries showed that since 1977 there had been only 449 EEC doctors other than those qualified in Ireland, and then went on to say that so far as nurses are concerned, in the year 1979–80 the number was 35, and for dentists, since June 1980, only seven; and her honourable friend in another place (I am trying to remember the exact words he used) I think said, "We have got to keep this in its right perspective".
This is precisely what I want to do; because, while it may be true that in 1979–80 the number of nurses who came from EEC countries into this country was only 35—and, as the noble Baroness said, it was only 35 in nine months—the fact remains that we are led to believe that there is not going to be a great influx of nurses from EEC countries, whereas in fact in the full year of 1980 there were no fewer than 203 nurses coming from Belgium, Denmark, Eire, France, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and West Germany. That means that in this country we have at the moment coming from the EEC approximately one nurse in every 70. I should like an assurance from the noble Baroness the Minister that nurses are going to be subject to the same kind of linguistic testing as are doctors. I have already said that I may have misunderstood the order; but, reading the order which is now before the House, I am not clear that it lays that down.
I will not say that it is more important that a nurse

1525
should have a good knowledge of English than that a doctor should, but as one who in recent years has spent many months in hospitals I will say that I had more to say, and wanted to say more, to the nurse than to the doctor. The nurses are on duty 24 hours a day looking after the patients and it is tremendously important that there should be no difficulty at all in communicating with the nurses. When it is said, "Let us keep what is involved in proportion", I think the situation of the nurses is very important. I want to ask the noble Baroness the Minister what really is the position with regard to the nurses.
I know that the General Nursing Council have been very careful about the ability of nurses coming from the EEC to speak English clearly and distinctly. I accept that the 203 who came here in 1980 were able to satisfy the General Nursing Council. Are the General Nursing Council going to be able to apply a linguistic test on the nurses? As I have said, it is not clear to me from the order. I should be grateful if it could be pointed out where it explicitly says so. I do not wish to take up any further time other than to say that I think this is a matter which must be cleared up. I know that a number of my noble friends will want to add their contributions.
4.42 p.m.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, I shall not keep the House for very long but I should like to underline what my noble friend has just said. Recently I was in an hotel restaurant, an experience which many noble Lords will have had, where four of us were attempting to order. It was an expensive restaurant. Since none of the waiters spoke English, the outcome was that the only kind of order which was effective was the kind attaching to the numbers on the menu. If you wanted "No. 42", that was splendid. But if you wanted roast potatoes as opposed to sauté potatoes, that was not understood. It was an irritating and frustrating experience. Anybody who, as I do, spends time on the No. 74 bus knows how entertaining it can be. Even this morning a bus conductor was trying to explain to somebody that that particular bus was the right numbered bus but it was not going as far as the individual wanted to go. This held up all the workers and resulted in some irritation.
Neither of these incidents was serious or dangerous, but if one has been into a casualty station and seen people brought in in a state of stress or shock trying to explain to a young nurse who they were and what had happened, one knows it is absolutely essential that nurses can understand patients and that patients can understand nurses. I cannot underline this too strongly. I think this is an example of what we are seeing constantly with Community orders. I recently went to meet somebody returning from Canada, a good British subject who, having taken out Canadian citizenship, had to come through the "Aliens" entrance while people from the EEC entered quite freely. I am not against people coming in, but there is a total nonsense in this situation if one looks at it objectively. We welcome the nurses, the doctors and the dentists, but it is essential that they speak English clearly and can understand the English of the patients. I am not now emphasising the situation of their professional colleagues. It is not important, perhaps, if a surgeon
1526
cannot speak English. He can probably indicate by sign language which instrument he wants. But to the patient it is absolutely essential.
The General Nursing Council are concerned about the matter and have written to a number of noble Lords. I notice that the Minister again repeated that this order will affect only a small minority of the professional people who come here. These were the words used by the Minister in another place. This is the particular phrase which the General Nursing Council, not exactly a revolutionary body, have objected to. My noble friend has pointed out that the numbers were incorrect. Above all, we must have the records straight when we are talking about an important order like this. I should like to say to the Minister that I am sure that the General Nursing Council has communicated with her right honourable friend saying that they continue to believe that proof of linguistic competence linked to registration is logical and necessary. It must be linked with registration. There is no use in having nurses here and then discovering, when they are actually in operation, that they do not have this competence. I feel that this order may go through quietly and unobtrusively if we do not make it clear that it is contrary to the beliefs and wishes of, certainly, the General Nursing Council. As my noble friend pointed out, the medical profession and the dental profession have not made the same overtures. But this representative body of the nurses have approached us, and I hope that due notice will be taken of their fears.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, like the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, I am associated not with the General Nursing Council but with the Royal College of Nursing, and I have had a very interesting letter which was received also by the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, putting the points which have been put already by him and by the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips. I should like to say that, while I am a strong supporter of the EEC—and I realise that it is important that there should be freedom of movement between the EEC countries—I agree with what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, that this freedom of movement is useless if members of the nursing profession or doctors or dentists come into the country but cannot make themselves understood. Not only can they not make themselves understood but the people they are attending cannot make communication with them. Fortunately, I have been in good health all my life, but when I have been ill it has been absolutely vital to be able to talk with freedom and understanding to the nurse or doctor looking after me.
I feel that this proposal which has been suggested to Her Majesty's Government by the General Nursing Council is one which it is difficult to refuse. On the other hand, I think it is equally important that we should just not accept it without being certain we can make some alteration if we want to or put in some of our own views in order to protect the patients and the profession. As the noble Lord has said, 203 nurses came from the EEC last year and perhaps there will be a good deal more this year or next year. If we are to have coming in a lot of nurses and members of the medical profession who cannot speak the language, that will be very awkward indeed. I hope that the

1527
Government—while in the difficult position of not being able to disagree with this—will realise that there is something which might go wrong and be detrimental to the patients and the nursing profession. I hope they will not just accept it with open arms.
Like the noble Lord opposite, I think this a very doubtful order, one which I wish we did not have to accept, although I expect it will be necessary to do so. If we do so, I hope that the noble Baroness and her department will be very strict in administering it, so that we get the very best results that we can in the shape of people who learn the language, understand the language and are prepared to spend time being able to communicate properly in the English tongue with their patients. Although I am not at all enthusiastic about this order, I realise that there are complications in the Community and probably the Government have to accept it. It may have very unfortunate repercussions and I hope that the Government will be prepared to make changes if they are necessary.
Lord Richardson: My Lords, I speak as the immediate past president of the General Medical Council who was concerned from the point of view of the Council, the regulating and registrating body of the medical profession, with the implementation of the National Health Service Act 1977. It worked very well. I know that the noble Baroness the Minister, and indeed all noble Lords and Baronesses who have spoken this evening, regret that those provisions cannot, for EEC legal reasons, be continued. I am however concerned about what I see as a gap. We have been talking about National Health Service employees, Government employees, where employers have to decide about the competence of those they propose to employ and how, in the case of doctors, they will use the existing mechanism. That mechanism works and I feel sure that it will continue to work. But what about those who come to this country who are not employed by the National Health Service and whose employers are not concerned to have them tested for their linguistic competence or those who will have no employers except themselves?
I am concerned about patients, and patients are not confined to the National Health Service. There is here a big gap. It may well be that the noble Baroness the Minister will be able to tell us that in the past six months, since I ceased to be concerned directly and responsible in some sense from the medical profession's end of these matters, some advances have been made. But I am not aware of them.
Regarding nurses, certainly communication is vital for the comfort of the patients and indeed for their safety. It is as great as with doctors. But with both it is absolutely essential not that the patient should be understood but that the doctor should not be misunderstood by the patient. As we all know, all citizens are much concerned with communication between the medical professions, the healing professions, and the public. This is absolutely vital. We must all try to get it better. But there are gaps in ensuring that at least a proper and objective test has been applied so that people can understand, and in order that gross misunderstandings will not occur. Otherwise people will be at risk of further misunderstanding.
4.53 p.m.
Lord Wynne-Jones: My Lords, I am sure that we have all been very grateful to the noble Baroness for the care with which she has outlined this order. But, as my noble friend Lord Wells-Pestell pointed out, there is one gap—and that refers to nurses. Having explained the rest of the order in detail, the noble Baroness pointed out that nurses were also included and indeed that is exactly how it is put down in the order. There is no clear reference to nurses except that they are included in this abolition of the old form of testing.
The noble Baroness said—I am sure she had no intention to mislead the House in the matter—that the General Nursing Council were themselves studying the problem of carrying out the test. This may indeed be true. In fact, it would be strange if they did not study it. However, according to the letter of which I have a copy—and other noble Lords also have copies—the deputy registrar of the General Nursing Council says:
"Dr. Vaughan knows well that this nurse registration authority continues to believe that proof of linguistic competence linked to registration is both logical and necessary, and that it has refused to respond to the attempts of his officials to take a different view".
In other words, the General Nursing Council remains—and this letter to me arrived only today—of the opinion that the proposal in the order is not satisfactory so far as nurses are concerned.
As has been pointed out by several of your Lordships, if one is in hospital—and for one reason or another, I have been in and out of hospital several times over the past two or three months—there is no question at all that the nurse is the most important person. Without the nurse, one receives no attention at all. One may have the best physician and the finest surgeon in the world; but the physician and surgeon cannot come to see the patient whenever the bell is rung. They will only come at certain set times because they have a vast number of other activities to carry out. However, the nurse is there specifically to look after the patient.
It seems to me an incredible suggestion that one can leave the language in which the nurse communicates with the patient to the matter of chance as to what country that nurse happens to originate from. This seems an extraordinary way of doing it. We set out regulations about the qualifications that they have but nothing about the language which they use for communication. Yet, when they are in hospital, their value is precisely in communicating the skill and training that they have, and the instructions that they have been given by doctor, physician and surgeon. They cannot do this without the language of the country.
One would have thought that this was so obvious that it would be meaningless to have any regulations dealing with nursing without making it clear that the nurse must show proficiency in the language of the country in which she is actually practising her job. I implore the noble Baroness to look at this matter with careful consideration. This aspect is not covered by this order. The doctors and the dentists are covered by the order; the nurses are simply thrown in and they are not covered properly by the order, yet they can form a most important part of the whole.
Speaking for myself, I would gladly be dealt with by a doctor who spoke some language other than

1529
my own. I might learn the language or, in any case, I might get some fun out of it. But when one is ringing a bell in bed in hospital it is not for the pleasure of seeing the nurses, great as that might be, but the desire to get immediate attention and to be understood.
Baroness Vickers: My Lords, first I must declare an interest in that I am a member of the Statutory Instruments Committee, but of course we are allowed to see only whether the instrument is correctly drawn and are not concerned with the policy of the instrument itself. I should like to raise one point and to quote from what the Minister said during a debate in the other place on 24th February. Dr. Vaughan said this in col. 851:
"I am aware there is a good deal of anxiety about the position of overseas doctors. I mentioned in opening the debate that it would require primary legislation to change the Medical Act".—
I should like to know whether my noble friend can tell me anything about that and say when it is likely to happen—
"… My information is that, in practice, overseas qualified doctors with British citizenship wishing to migrate to other States of the EEC experience no major difficulty in securing registration on the basis of qualifications acceptable to the General Medical Council.
I shall look into this matter again. I hope that the fears expressed today are unfounded, but I understand the desire of overseas doctors to be treated in the same way as other British citizens. I have therefore agreed to meet a delegation from the Overseas Doctors Association and the BMA to look into this yet again".
I should be grateful to know whether this has been undertaken or whether it is to be undertaken in the near future.
I should also like to point out that dental nursing is very important in this respect. When I am at the dentist's I find it practically impossible to communicate even in my own language, and I think it may be very difficult to communicate in that state. So I should be very grateful to have an answer as to whether this delegation has been met and what has been the result.
5.2 p.m.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: My Lords, I should like to follow the noble Baroness because she has raised the question of overseas doctors, and this order seems to me to be another example of the discrimination which overseas doctors experience as opposed to doctors from the EEC. An overseas doctor who wants to practise here has to pass a language test: that is settled. Personally, I think it is right that that should be so; but we now have this new arrangement under which doctors from the EEC can come here. They do not have to pass a language test and they are registered because of their qualification in the EEC. According to the noble Baroness, if they apply for a job in the National Health Service the employing authorities will be given guidelines to ensure that these people speak English properly before they are employed. I would concede that: I think it is quite possible to do that. I would merely hope that the guidelines are tight enough to ensure that all the authorities are strict in observing them.
The noble Lord, Lord Richardson, pointed out, however, that it is not only in the National Health Service that medicine or dentistry is practised and there
1530
is nothing at all in these regulations to prevent any doctor from any EEC country setting up in Harley Street, Wimpole Street, or anywhere else: nothing at all. Whether he learns English in one year, 10 years or 40 years, he will still be free to go on practising.
There is also the question of the private hospitals. There will be nothing to prevent any of these private hospitals employing professional people without bothering about whether or not they can speak English. The noble Baroness pointed out that they have the power to control. I agree that is so, but what they will not have is any definite compulsion to do so. Therefore, as the noble Lord, Lord Richardson, pointed out, we may well have a situation in which doctors may be practising even though in fact they cannot communicate. This is something which needs to be looked at because it strikes me that regulations can be made to control certainly the employment of doctors, dentists or nurses in private institutions. I think the Government ought to look carefully at this matter with a view to taking the power to do just that.
I should like also to deal with the point reaised by the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, because of course overseas doctors are again handicapped when they want to practise in the EEC since the regulations under which EEC members can practise in each other's countries mean that their basic qualification must be within the EEC. Therefore, if a doctor has taken his basic qualification elsewhere he is not allowed to practise and he has not that freedom to practise everywhere in the EEC.
I have never been able to understand why the Department of Health, in its negotiations with the EEC, has not been able at least to get it accepted that doctors who have their MRCP or FRCS or any of the advanced qualifications here, even though their basic qualifications are elsewhere, should not be allowed to practise. As I understand it, the question concerns the basic qualification, and still remains so. I have never been able to understand why it has not been possible for there to be negotiations with the EEC to enable doctors who have senior qualifications to be free to practice within the EEC. I can understand a doctor who has been qualified for quite a few years saying: "I am not going to sit my MB once more in order to be able to go and practise elsewhere"; but if he really wants to go and practise elsewhere—and he could if he had a higher qualification—it would be an encouragement for him to get that qualification. I have never been able to understand why the negotiations have not gone along those lines and why it has not been possible to get that sort of agreement.
I am digressing from the order, of course, but the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, gave me the chance and I took it. Corning back to the order, I think we ought to look at ways of tightening it. I genuinely believe that the loopholes that have been allowed are too many and that the Government can find ways of tightening them.
Lord Colwyn: My Lords, before the noble Baroness replies, I feel I should say a few words on behalf of the minority profession, the dentists. I must declare two interests: one is that I am a practising dental surgeon and, secondly, I do speak English although perhaps it is usually a one-sided conversation on most occasions.

1531
We do appreciate the need for this order to be passed because it brings us into line with the obligations of the EEC. However, most dentists and the General Dental Council are not very happy about it because our system of testing language ability in the past has worked very well and this is now going to move the onus of assessment to the area health authority rather than to the central controlling body—in my case, the General Dental Council. However, this must be done to fit in with the order; and we support it.
It is really common sense and quite obvious that any medical or dental practitioner must be able to communicate with his patients, and we really do not see that under this order there will be all that much change. I thought this afternoon's debate was going to be very good-mannered, and we are talking about discrimination now—this was cunningly brought in by the noble Lord, Lord Pitt. In order to practise in this country —and again I speak as a dentist—you have to register, and to register you have either to pass a recognised examination or take a statutory examination when you come into the country.
We recognise the qualifications from the EEC countries and also from Australia, New Zealand, Malta and Singapore. In the last four countries, their examinations are based on English so there is no problem there, while those practitioners from the EEC did, and will still have to, demonstrate their ability to speak English in order to work in this country. All qualifications in medical and dental authorities are recognised, and thoroughly checked by visits to universities by our own bodies in this country, so there is no chance of poorly-qualified doctors or dentists coming in and working in our system. Dentists from other countries, whose qualifications are not automatically accepted, have to take a statutory examination. This examination is very comprehensive and it is one that is taken in English. If they pass it, one assumes that their ability to speak English is acceptable and further testing is unnecessary.
Recently, when this order was publicised, we read in the ordinary press, and even in the slightly irresponsible dental press, implications that some patients would be faced with long queues in the waiting rooms, queueing up to see dentists who did not even speak the language. That just is not so. I should also like to answer the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, about the prospects of private practice, because I do not see that a requirement to speak English is at all necessary. Again, if you are in practice, you have to register and the registration requires taking the necessary degree or statutory examination. In private practice, the employer is the patient and not the area health authority, so an ability to speak the language is irrelevant. Patients will not queue to see private practitioners if no communication is possible. Such a practitioner would not be able to make a living. Finally, I appreciate the need for the change in this order. I do not think it will necessarily be more efficient, but there is no doubt that it will work, and I support it.
5.12 p.m.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I should like at the start of my reply to this short debate on an important order to say that, of course, I and my colleagues
1532
understand very well those who are concerned that people may not be able to communicate with a doctor, a dentist or a nurse. This is a very serious matter, but we must be quite clear about why this order arises. This is not, in any sense, intended to be some kind of debate on the European Community, of which we are now a member. This is, of course, part of our obligations under the treaty that we are trying to fulfil. I would say to all noble Lords who have expressed concern, that what we are attempting to achieve is the best that can be managed within Community law and that, if we were not to move down this path, we could find ourselves in a far worse position than we have under the order.
Just to clarify the position, I should like to set out the background. Noble Lords will be aware that one of the aims of the Treaty of Rome is freedom of movement of workers between member states. For professional people, whose ability to practise depends on the possession of recognised qualifications, this is covered by directives providing for the mutual recognition of those qualifications. There are two directives affecting doctors, which were approved in 1975. One of them is relevant, in that it enjoins member states to see that migrant practitioners acquire a knowledge of the language necessary to exercise their profession in the host country. It was the intention of the Medical Qualifications (EEC Recognition) Order of 1977 to implement this directive in the United Kingdom. That order provides that the General Medical Council must satisfy itself about the knowledge of English of European Community doctors on or within six months of registering them.
However, in a formal reasoned opinion delivered in 1979, the European Community Commission requested the removal of this provision, on the grounds that it constituted a restriction on the freedom of movement of professionals and was therefore in contravention of Article 52 of the Treaty. The Commission's objection extends to doctors and nurses, as these professionals have since been the subject of further directives and the European Community recognition orders containing parallel provisions on language requirements. If its view is not acted upon, the Commission may forthwith refer the matter to the European Court, and it is the Government's view that the present arrangements could not be defended before the court with any conceivable advantage to the United Kingdom. We therefore have this order today and which we hope meets some of the anxieties that have been expressed, without contravening European law.
If I may put it in these rather simple terms, there is a very well-known couplet which goes,
"Be sure to keep a hold of nurse,
For fear of finding something worse",
and, in a sense, that very much applies in today's circumstances. I was therefore very glad of the general welcome that the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, gave to the provisions governing doctors and dentists, and of what was said by my noble friend Lord Colwyn, who spoke about dentists. That was very helpful indeed.
Before turning to the general points that have been raised, perhaps I may attempt to answer the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, who suggested that there might be some discrimination against over-

1533
seas doctors. This is an issue which is naturally of deep concern to us all, though it is rather wide of the order. But I can well understand the desire of overseas doctors to have exactly the same freedom of movement as other British citizens, and I understand that the Minister of Health has agreed to meet a delegation from the Overseas Doctors' Association and the BMA to see what can be done in that regard.
Most noble Lords—in particular, the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot, and the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones—raised points about nurses. Perhaps I may begin on the question of the figures for nurses. The figures which were supplied by the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, relate to the calendar year 1980 and include at least half of those who qualified in the Republic of Ireland, who will, of course, speak English. The official basis of the published figures is April/April, and I have given the latest figures that are available.
As regards European Community nurses as a proportion of all overseas nurses, the House may be interested to know that there are about 3,000 overseas nurses who register annually in the United Kingdom. Of those, the overwhelming majority come from Commonwealth or other English-speaking countries, with more than 50 per cent. coming from Australia and New Zealand alone. I was asked whether the General Nursing Council was going to apply a test and the answer is, no. It will be for the health authorities to use the facilities provided by the General Nursing Council, if they so wish.
The noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, both asked why nurses are not mentioned in the order itself, except at the beginning in the repeals. That is because the order covers only contractors in the service—that is, general medical and dental practitioners—and does not cover doctors and dentists who are employed by health authorities. The reason why it does not cover those doctors is that health authorities already have powers to apply a language requirement and they will be given clear guidance as to how they should exercise those powers. I think that that answers the very practical point which the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, raised about a casualty department, which would almost certainly be in a National Health Service hospital, and would be staffed by employees of the National Health Service. Of course, guidance will be given to area health authorities to assure themselves, in employing National Health Service doctors, dentists or nurses, that they have this competence in English—
Lord Wells-Pestell: My Lords, before the noble Baroness carries on, I wonder whether she would allow me to intervene at this stage. Is she saying that health authorities can use their discretion as to whether they will apply a language test, so far as nurses are concerned? I think that is precisely what she said; that it would be within their discretion. May I ask her whether the Government would give an undertaking that health authorities will be asked to see that an English test is, in fact, applied to all nurses if they cannot speak English adequately? One must bear in mind that there are large areas of England today where it is difficult to get nurses. I can see the more
1534
competent ones coming to areas which are already reasonably well supplied, and those who cannot speak English, unless they are compelled to take the test, will be engaged by health authorities where it is difficult to get nurses.
5.20 p.m.
Baroness Young: My Lords, as I have already indicated, at the moment the number of nurses who cannot speak English coming to this country from the countries of the European Economic Community is quite small. My understanding is that area health authorities will be required to satisfy themselves that doctors in the National Health Service have competence in English and that the same will apply to nurses. If I am in any way inaccurate about that, I shall write to the noble Lord.
A number of noble Lords asked me about the other issue; namely, private practice. The noble Lord, Lord Pitt of Hampstead, asked what would be the position of patients who go privately to consultants. The position is that doctors in private practice will not be required to pass a language test, the view being that nobody will pay to consult a doctor if he is unable to communicate with that doctor—I think there is a great deal of sense in that—and that anybody who employed a doctor privately would be unlikely to employ somebody who could not communicate with patients.
Those running private hospitals or nursing homes will have the right, if they so wish, to test the language ability of the doctors, the nurses or the other people whom they are employing. This is not the direct concern of the registering health authority. The 1975 Act gives to the registering health authority the power to refuse registration where they are satisfied that the person applying for registration, or any person employed in a home or hospital, is not a fit person. Language ability could be relevant in determining whether a particular member of staff was a fit person—that is to say, could speak the same language as the patients. The person in charge of a home registered under the 1975 Act must be either a registered medical practitioner or a registered nurse. The language ability of that person may well be a factor which the health authority takes into account in deciding whether he is a fit person to be in charge of a registered home.
The further safeguard that private employers will be conscious of their legal liability for the consequences of failures on the part of practitioners whom they employ will, I hope, make them very careful before they employ people who might be regarded as unsuitable, not because of any of their medical qualifications but because of their inability to speak the language.
It is extremely important to remind noble Lords that the requirement for registration remains. All doctors coming from the European Community or anybody wishing to practise in this country must be a registered doctor. So one has assurances about their medical qualifications. The only point we have been discussing this afternoon is the requirement that as well as being properly qualified they should also be able to speak English.
I am very well aware of the strong feelings which have been expressed this afternoon in your Lordships' House. I hope I have been able to answer the points

1535
which have been raised but if, on reading Hansard, I find that there are any which I have not answered, I shall of course write to the noble Lord concerned. In any event, I shall draw the attention of my honourable friend Dr. Vaughan to this afternoon's debate, which I am sure he, too, will want to study.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, may I ask her whether there is any definition of this linguistic competence? Luckily I am healthy and have not been in hospital, but we have all suffered at hotel registration counters because of somebody who speaks only about 100 words of English. They can understand you, provided you keep within the tramlines of, "I am so-and-so and I wish to register here". But if you ask them anything beyond that they give you a completely blank look because their English is very limited. In a hotel or restaurant this can be frustrating, but in a casualty department it would be absolutely dangerous.
I recall that a long time ago the miners would not have European workers in the pits. They were very much criticised for this but it was because of the nature of the occupation: the danger of being unable to communicate rapidly. I do not like this period of six months. People could come here and might appear to speak enough English to get by. That would be sufficient in many professions but, whatever the EEC feels, I do not believe it is good enough in a profession where there is an element of danger so far as safety is concerned.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I can reassure the noble Baroness on her last point. The position at present is that EEC nationals who come here to register do not have to take a linguistic test for six months. That will end. This is an improvement. Not only will an EEC national who is a qualified doctor and who wishes to come and practise in the National Health Service have to register; the area health authority which employs him will also have to satisfy itself that he can speak English or can communicate in English.
I understand that the General Medical Council, which at the moment undertakes not only registration but also the language test, will make available for use by area health authorities or, alternatively, family practitioner committees—because a person might wish to be in general practice—their tests. To use these tests requires reasonable competence in English. As the noble Lord, Lord Richardson, quite rightly said, it is just as important that the patient should understand what the doctor is saying to him as that the converse should be true. From the point of view of the patient, the situation is in some respects better now than it was.
I can assure noble Lords that we shall be looking very carefully at the guidance which is to be given to area health authorities or to family practitioner committees about the kinds of test they must apply to satisfy themselves that a person is competent to communicate with patients.
5.28 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Motion shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 92; Not-Contents, 44.

CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Long, V.

Alport, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Amulree, L.

Lyell, L.

Auckland, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Avon, E.

Mancroft, L.

Banks, L.

Marley, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Bellwin, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Belstead, L.

Mersey, V.

Benson, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Caccia, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Caithness, E.

Morris, L.

Cathcart, E.

Mottistone, L.

Colwyn, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Newall, L.

Craigavon, V.

Northchurch, B.

Cranbrook, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Orkney, E.

Darnley, E.

Pender, L.

De Freyne, L.

Penrhyn, L.

De La Warr, E.

Reigate, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Rochdale, V.

Dormer, L.

Rochester, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Evans of Claughton, L.

St. Davids, V.

Ferrers, E.

Salisbury, M.

Ferrier, L.

Sandys, L. [Teller.]

Gainford, L.

Seear, B.

Gisborough, L.

Selborne, E.

Gladwyn, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Gowrie, E.

Soames, L.

Gray, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Greenway, L.

Strathspey, L.

Grey, E.

Sudeley, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Swansea, L.

Swinfen, L.

Halsbury, E.

Teynham, L.

Hankey, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Hanworth, V.

Trumpington, B.

Henley, L.

Ullswater, V.

Holderness, L.

Vaizey, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Vickers, B.

Killearn, L.

Westbury, L.

Kimberley, E.

Wigoder, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Young, B.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aylestone, L.

Leatherland, L.

Birk, B.

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

Briginshaw, L.

Brockway, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

McCarthy, L.

Collison, L.

Melchett, L.

David, B.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Diamond, L.

Oram, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Peart, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Phillips, B.

Gardiner, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

George-Brown, L.

Rugby, L.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Shinwell, L.

Gosford, E.

Stone, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Gregson, L.

Underhill, L.

Hale, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L. [Teller.]

Henderson, L.

Jacques, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Janner, L.

Whaddon, L.

Jeger, B.

White, B.

Kennet, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Kilmarnock, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Motion agreed to accordingly.

Town and Country Planning (Minerals) Bill [Hi.]
5.37 p.m.
Report of amendments received.
Clause 1 [Meaning of "development"]:
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Bellwin)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Bellwin) moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, leave out lines 12 and 13 and insert ("include—

(a) the removal of material of any description—

(i) from a mineral-working deposit;

(ii) from a deposit of pulverised fuel ash or other furnace ash or clinker; or

(iii) a deposit of iron, steel or other metallic slags; and

(b) the extraction of minerals from a disused railway embankment.".").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I should like to refer to the fact that there is a printing error; namely, the omission of the word "from". Paragraph (a)(iii) should read "from a deposit of iron, steel or other metallic slags". Likewise in Amendment No. 3 the word "from" has been omitted from paragraph (a)(iii). In moving this amendment I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 3, and for the first of a number of times this afternoon I shall speak at the same time to its Scottish equivalent.
In Committee my noble friend Lord Ridley and the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, both tabled amendments which extended the provisions of Clause 1 to cover deposits other than mineral-working ones. I think my noble friend's amendment went rather further than that tabled by the noble Baroness. At that time, I said that I accepted in principle the extension of planning control to the removal of material from some of the deposits listed in my noble friend's amendment, and that I would bring forward an amendment today.
I think there was a general welcome to the suggested extension to cover deposits of pulverised fuel ash and various types of metallic slag, and this the amendment now does. What was much more difficult was to consider one or two of the other matters suggested by my noble friend. As I explained in Committee, I do not think it right to include tips of domestic, industrial and commercial waste, for this would bring under planning control various activities (for example, clearing dereliction) which we are trying to encourage. In relation to disused road embankments, I am not aware of any cases where the removal of material has given rise to environmental problems and I have also been influenced in deciding against including these by the reasons advanced in Committee by my noble friend Lord Gisborough.
This leaves us with railway embankments. I have to confess that I am not entirely convinced that such embankments do not always form part of the land and are therefore subject to planning control already. However, I know that some county councils feel very strongly about this, and I have therefore decided, for the avoidance of doubt, that the extraction of minerals from disused railway embankments is clearly subject to planning control. This will cover the case, for example, where such embankments are raked over in the
1538
North-East of England to recover coal, and more generally the use of embankments as a source of aggregate for the construction industry. I beg to move.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I very much welcome this Amendment. As the Minister was good enough to say, I moved a similar amendment on Committee. The main difference between the amendment moved by the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, and my own was the point about railway embankments and also disused roads. I think this amendment makes the Bill even better and Clause 1 more specific, so I welcome it and thank the Government for it.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
5.41 p.m.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 5, at end insert (", there having been no intention at the time of such deposit to carry out further operations on the deposit.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with this amendment I should like, as my noble friend did with the first amendment, to couple another amendment, No. 4. With the permission of the House, I will not repeat every time that we are taking the Scottish amendment in parallel. Industry is still concerned that the definition in the Bill will in practice turn out to be too wide, and operators would, therefore, be required to obtain additional planning permissions for any operations not an intrinsic part of the primary extraction of minerals. At Committee stage my noble friend the Minister felt unable to accept the amendment, No. 1 at that time (col. 1314) which I tabled, but he did express his appreciation of the industry's concern. It is still very reluctant to depend on the mercy of an as yet hypothetical GDO. This amendment is designed to incorporate in the legislation the focus on the objective agreed by the Government and the industry as reasonable, and hopefully to meet my noble friend's objections, in col. 1315, to my earlier amendment. I accept that an operator would have the difficult onus of proving his intention at the time that the deposit was made. I beg to move.
Baroness Birk: May I say a brief word on this amendment because it addresses itself to the problem that the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, raised in Committee. It is true, I believe, that this part of the Bill is drafted rather widely, and it applies to the whole section. The point I want to make is that the amendment would not tighten up the wording as such but would completely destroy the intention of this part of the Bill. As I see it, as long as an operator, when depositing waste material on a site, declared that it would be his intention to carry out further operations in the future, then any operations on that mineral deposit at any time in the future would not require planning permission. This I find so imprecise that it would effectively exempt working on all deposits, because automatically operators could state that they had the intention at some time in the future of carrying out further operations. This commitment would in no way inhibit or restrain them. They would not have to follow it up in practice, but they would automatically by a simple declaration remove certain operations from

1539
planning control. This surely cannot be a satisfactory basis for tackling the problem of the working of stockpiles which are naturally generated on a working site. I am not really surprised that at this late stage the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, should come forward with another amendment on this point. He has courage, I must say, but this is really so patently inadequate. I do very much hope that the Government will resist this amendment as strongly as I am resisting it.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I recognise the reason for this amendment. Our original intention was to bring under planning control only the working of mineral waste, and our sole reason for widening Clause 1 to cover all mineral working deposits has been the impossibility of distinguishing in legislation terms between waste and a stockpile. I do not feel that the amendment provides a satisfactory solution to this problem. The test which is proposed—the intention at the time of deposit—would introduce a great deal of uncertainty, and we are afraid that this would be difficult to resolve without the return to the Secretary of State on appeal. I still feel that the solution we are proposing to this problem—a wide definition in the Bill and granting planning permission in the GDO for cases where planning control is clearly inappropriate—is the most practical way forward. That is why I am unable to accept my noble friend's amendment.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, before addressing myself to my noble friend's remarks, perhaps I could address some remarks to the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, who was, as it were, taking me to task for having the effrontery to come back with a different amendment. I would invite her to look at my closing remarks at col. 1316, where I said:
"Perhaps I might take this away and see if we cannot find a form of words which would satisfy your Lordships on Report".
Having said that to warn the House and the Committee that I might do what I have just done, I do not think it is effrontery to do it. So I trust that, when the noble Baroness refers to her notes from advisers on future occasions, where they have put in what might be described as somewhat disparaging remarks relating to my actions, she will observe that in all cases where I have put down amendments—except in one case where it was not my amendment in the first place—I had a phrase not dissimilar from the one I have juts read out from col. 1316. It was a good-humoured Committee and it is a good-humoured House, but I do rather take exception to being accused of breaking what I understand to be the Rules of the House in putting down amendments at Report stage.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, if the noble Lord the Minister will forgive me, I am very sorry the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, was upset. It really was not anything to do with my advisers. Obviously, it was a joke that fell flat; it was meant to be a very good-humoured quip. I was getting sleepy and I felt it was time we woke everything up a bit. Of course, the noble Lord has the right to put down the amendment. I just felt that when he thought it over he would think it not a very sensible thing to do. This is not casting any aspersion on him.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, it is a pity about the last remarks. I was about to accept the whole thing. Everything I say in this House I believe to be sensible, including when I pull the noble Baroness's leg.
To return to the particular amendment and my noble friend's remarks, what I see is that he is inviting us to depend on the mercy of an as yet hypothetical GDO. Once again, perhaps I might take away his words and think about this matter. I saw this as a drafting amendment which was going to improve the Bill. It seems to me that others have read it somewhat differently. At this stage of the passage of the Bill through Parliament, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 18 [Meaning of "development"]:
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 22, leave out lines 36 and 37 and insert ("include—

(a) the removal of material of any description—

(i) from a mineral-working deposit;

(ii) from a deposit of pulverised fuel ash or other furnace ash or clinker; or

(iii) a deposit of iron, steel or other metallic slags; and

(b) the extraction of minerals from a disused railway embankment.".").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment with Amendment No. 1. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 4 not moved.]
5.50 p.m.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 23, line 12, at end insert—
("(3) Subsection (3) of section 38 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972 (limit of duration of planning permission) shall be amended by the insertion at the end of the paragraph (d) of the following words:—
"or
(e) to any planning permission granted for development consisting of the winning and working of minerals.".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment was tabled in Committee by my noble friend Lord Boardman as, I think, Amendment No. 12, in col. 1323. My noble friend unfortunately cannot be here today and has asked me if I would take it on again. I should add that not only did I support this amendment in Committee—having a somewhat similar one of my own at the time—but my support is whole-hearted.
With my noble friend Lord Boardman I shall resist the temptation to read to the House Chapter 7 of the Stevens Report, but shall draw attention simply to the fact that an operator, first, can win minerals only where nature deposited them; secondly, can buy mineral building land only when it comes on to the market; and thirdly, can work minerals only after he has obtained planning consent to do so. Stevens, after hearing a mass of evidence, recommended that in respect of mineral planning permissions, first, restoration conditions should always be imposed; secondly, planning authorities should have full discretion to impose or not to impose a limit on the period within which a development must start; thirdly, its life should generally be limited to 60 years; and fourthly, planning

1541
authorities should have powers to review conditions, the operator bearing a reasonable amount of the consequent financial benefit.
The Bill deals with restoration and after-care with a 60-year life and imposes the financial liability on operators. It does not give the recommended freedom for a planning authority not to impose a limit on the starting date. For operators with heavy investments in minerals and plant at stake, that is very serious. It may be that my noble friend the Minister might say; "There is nothing to prevent the authority from putting a date as far ahead as the starting limit. We shall encourage them to do so". But they do not, despite the Department of the Environment's encouragement as in Circular 57/78.
I have with me two planning permissions: one from the East Lothian District Council and one from the Warwickshire County Council. They both bear, in black print on the front of them, a statement. One of them says:
"The development to which this permission relates must be begun within five years from the date of this permission".
The other says almost exactly the same thing. The period of five years is printed on the front. There is no blank so that it reads, "within (blank) years". It seems to me, therefore, that common human nature and (dare I say?) laziness, will encourage people, if they are using this particular form, not to go through the trouble of crossing out "five" and putting something else in. They will leave it as it is, and indeed they have done so.
There are other interesting facts. The East Lothian form consists of four pages of detailed instructions and no doubt the operator has, perhaps reluctantly, accepted them. It gives the authority such enormous control. I must say that I have not seen a form like this before and I think that the degree of control which the planning authority manages to exercise now, before the Bill is enacted, is something to be seen to be believed. If anybody thinks that operators are getting away with things, then they are most mistaken.
I return to my amendment. Both of these orders concern minerals. Both have a five-year starting limit printed upon them. I am informed that they are typical and that it is very rare for an authority to grant a longer starting period. Thus the minerals industry is ensnared in a limit designed and appropriate for normal building developments.
The Minister says that the operator can appeal against conditions imposed or can apply for a new permission if, for one reason or another, a permission expires unused. I wonder whether my noble friend the Minister appreciates the expense and effort involved in obtaining a planning consent, let alone in mounting appeals against unreasonable conditions. Some parts of industry (and it is by no means uniform in its needs and problems) have suggested that a permission limited not by time but in relation to the operation of a previous consent—thus giving a planned sequence of consented operations—might help. I wonder whether my noble friend the Minister might care to comment on whether that is legal within the terms of Section 41(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 and, if not, whether the Government would consider an appropriate amendment of the law.
Finally, the amendment does not remove the power
1542
of the planning authorities to impose time limits, but should give them the flexibility in appropriate cases to allow either for planned development or for the absence of an absolute limit. I hope that my noble friend will be more encouraging this time. I beg to move.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I shall not repeat today all of the arguments that I advanced in Committee about what we are doing to ensure that adequate provision is being made for the long-term needs of the mining industry. Let me just say that I have not forgotten the promise which I made to my noble friend Lord Mottistone in response to his Committee Amendment No. 10 at that time, on long-term planning. I said that I would consider whether a provision more narrowly drawn than that amendment would be a useful addition to the Bill. Unfortunately, it is not easy to see how such a provision might be added without having unfortunate repercussions elsewhere in the planning system. But we have not given up hope and it may be possible to introduce something appropriate in the other place, if not in your Lordships' House. Even if we conclude that it is not appropriate for this Bill, I should like to give an assurance to my noble friend that we shall be advising mineral planning authorities, when the Bill comes into effect, that they must ensure adequate provision for the needs of the mining industry.
I turn to the substance of the amendment. I cannot accept that mineral working should not be subject to a starting limit when planning permission is granted. That would inevitably lead to uncertainty and would be extremely harmful to the overall planning of an area. All other main types of development, including housing and industry, are subject to a five-year start period or such other longer or shorter period which the planning authority may specify.
The principle of a start period was confirmed both in relation to the Town and Country Planning Act 1968 and indeed in debate on the Mining Regulations in 1971, and on both occasions was accepted by your Lordships and, indeed, by the industry. This amendment which states that nothing in Section 41 of the 1971 Act shall apply to
"development consisting of the winning and working of minerals"
would not only take away the duty of the mineral planning authority to put a time limit on a planning permission, but would also cast serious doubt on whether the planning authority had the power to impose a time limit at all.
I recognise that five years may be inadequate in some circumstances, but the mineral planning authority does have complete discretion to set a longer period if the mineral operator puts forward a convincing case. My noble friend suggests that mineral planning authorities always impose a five-year start period, but I have been advised by the ACC only today that their authorities are always prepared to consider any requests for periods longer than five years—and I am sure that the metropolitan authorities do likewise—and they have provided a number of examples where this has been done. So, with respect, it is by no means a formality which my noble friend suggests.
Finally, I note carefully the point made by my noble

1543
friend about phased workings and I shall undertake to take that away to have it looked at by the lawyers. With that assurance, I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I should like briefly to support the Minister as regards this amendment because when it came up in Committee I opposed it on the grounds that it seemed to me that there was no reason why mineral workings should be treated differently from other planning permissions, and also it did not appear that there was any hardship suffered by the operators. Like the Minister, I also have made inquiries. As well as the ACC, the AMA have also done a survey on this. In all the cases where it was examined it was found that the mineral planning authorities were always open to any applications or requests from operators for a longer starting period. In fact, the requests were practically none. As the Minister said, there were, I think, three we know of in the shires. So far as the AMA and the metropolitan district is concerned, only one has come to the surface. In many other areas there have been no requests at all. I will not rehearse the reasons because I am so much in agreement with what the Minister said about this, but I hope that the Government will stick to their last about this. He said at the beginning something to the effect that there may be opportunity in another place, but I hope he will stand firm on this. I also hope that the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, will not take this personally because I am talking about the subject of the amendment and not because he personally moved it, but if he looks at this and does his own inquiries among the mineral planning authorities he will find that there is enough flexibility. If people require it and can substantiate the reasons for a longer starting date, they will be able to get it. I hope, with the Government, that he will find it possible to withdraw this amendment.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, may I say a brief word of support for the Minister and ask my noble friend to take this into account. The local authorities have a practical problem just as much as the industry has. Of course, all those who are familiar with this subject understand that the industry needs to plan years ahead in order to keep its very expensive processes going. We fully understand that. On the other hand, the local authority have very sensitive public opinion to handle. Certainly in the South-East region, where so much of this aggregate must be got, the sites being opened now become more and more sensitive. It really is quite an important matter to the local authorities to get the timing of these developments in the most acceptable way—or at least let me put it like this, in the least unacceptable way.
They really have big local considerations to manage in order to get these consents approved at all. After all, it is the locally elected county councillors who have to give the consent. How the hell they are to be voted in again by the local people who would cut their throats if they could get hold of them is quite a puzzle. Timing is a matter of importance, and I am sure that my noble friend can see that the local authorities have a problem here just as much as the industry. I think
1544
the right answer is what my noble friend has offered; the local authority must have power to fix a time limit, but in the guidance that is given to local authorities they should be asked to be flexible and to consider the needs of the industry as much as they can. Having done that, they really have done about all they can to get the balance right in this rather difficult matter.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken. I would take issue with my noble friend Lord Nugent on one point only, because I quite understand the gist of what he is saying. It is really a question of whether five years is a short period of time or not. To me things happening in 1976 were but yesterday. Frantic arguments when we were sitting on the other side of the House about the Docks Bill, and the Shipbuilding Bill, seem to have occurred about yesterday. I had been in my present job for a good year by then. It seems but yesterday when I even started it.
If you are a mineral operator with very expensive heavy machinery and a long-term operating schedule altogether, five years is obviously but a short period of your total working plan. It would seem to me therefore that it is just this one point. One almost gets carried away to repeat it too much, but one wants to make sure that all county councils—and some of them are—are fully aware that their time-scale of (what shall we say?) four years for the next election, and perhaps their time-scale in whatever operations or other things they do apart from being councillors, cannot be judged against the measurement of the mineral operators.
Having said all that, I take great heart from what my noble friend the Minister has said because he gave two very guarded undertakings at different points in his speech. We take great heart from this, and hope that perhaps something fruitful might come from it. I hope that he will not have listened too closely to the blandishments of the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, who was rather pressing him to forget at any rate the first of his hopeful remarks, and will press on with that and perhaps see some way to helping us to get something in the area in which this amendment lies to improve the Bill, and make it one of which this House can be proud. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 [Distribution of planning functions]:
6.5 p.m.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 2, line 28, at end insert—
("(4) In paragraph 24 of Schedule 16 to the Local Government Act 1972 (which provides for the distribution of certain functions, including the service of enforcement notices under section 87 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 and stop notices under section 90 of that Act, between the district planning authority and the county planning authority)—

(a) in sub-paragraph (1), for the words "sub-paragraph (2)" there shall be substituted the words "sub-paragraphs (2) to (4)";

(b) in sub-paragraph (3), for the word "Those" there shall be substituted the words "Subject to sub-paragraph (4) below, those"; and

1545

(c) the following sub-paragraph shall be added after that sub-paragraph:—

"(4) In relation to a matter which is a county matter by virtue of any of the provisions of paragraph 32(a) to (cd) below the functions of a local planning authority specified in sub-paragraph (1)(b) above shall only be exercisable by the mineral planning authority.".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, when my noble friend Lord Sandford moved Amendment No. 147 in Committee on behalf of my noble friend Lord Ridley, I recognised the strong arguments for limiting the power to serve enforcement and stop notices to mineral planning authorities—particularly as a similar amendment was tabled by my noble friend Lord Mottistone. Since then officials in my department have discussed this matter with representatives of the local authority associations, and to the best of my knowledge no objections have been raised. I am therefore delighted to fulfil my promise and I bring forward this amendment today. I beg to move.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I should briefly like to welcome this amendment, and to thank my noble friend for having put it forward, and for following up on our previous discussions.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I was not going to say anything, but as I am in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, on this I feel I ought to register it and be able to read it in Hansard. I also am pleased about this amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No.7 not moved.]
Clause 3 [Periodical reviews of mineral workings]:
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 2, line 40, after ("period") insert ("or
(iii) are authorised by planning permission but have not been begun;").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I speak to both this amendment and to its Scottish equivalent, No. 10. I am indebted to my noble friend Lord Sandford for drawing our attention to an inadvertent departure from the Stevens Committee recommendations when he moved his Amendment No. 18 in Committee. We have decided that it would be right to follow Stevens and place mineral planning authorities under a duty to review not only sites where mineral working is currently taking place or has ceased within the last five years but also those where working is authorised but has not yet begun.
Perhaps I can illustrate this with an example. We are encouraging mineral planning authorities where circumstances warrant it to impose periods longer than five years within which mineral working must begin. Suppose a 10-year start condition is imposed. We believe that if the mineral planning authority happens to be carrying out a review in, say, the eighth year of this permission, even if working has not commenced they should look at the conditions on the permission and consider whether they still reflect the required environmental standards—which may in themselves have changed in eight years. This amendment will achieve this. I beg to move.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I also support this amendment, and like the Minister should like to express my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, for pointing out this omission to us on Committee. It is obviously necessary that the scope of these reviews should be wide enough to embrace this category of planning permissions. It was in order to make sure that the scope of reviews was sufficiently wide that I moved another amendment on 5th February, at column 1336, that would enable local authorities to look at non-operational workings which had ceased work at any time they chose in the historical past.
I have now received a letter from the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, regarding such an amendment, for which he originally expressed support on Committee stage. He says:
"The important point is that any mineral planning authority can still go back beyond five years if it wishes to do so, and use the powers provided under the Bill, but it will not be under a statutory duty to do so".
I hope this is legally correct; I think there is a certain legal difference of opinion over this—I am not for a moment suggesting the Minister is misrepresenting the position—so I am still looking into the matter and may have to return to it on Third Reading. I hope that will not be necessary.
If the Government's legal advice is that this is generally acceptable, then I shall have to accept that, but in view of the letter, the quotation from which I just read, it would be helpful (in view of this obscure point and the legal difference of opinion on it) if the issue could be clearly expressed in any circular that is prepared on the basis of the Bill in this area of planning permission. Certainly I do not want to raise the matter unless it is absolutely necessary to do so.
Lord Bellwin: I shall of course consider carefully what the noble Baroness said, my Lords, and just as she is anxious that it should be right, we are equally anxious.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 9:
After Clause 3, insert the following new clause:
("National review of mineral workings
. The Secretary of State, in conjunction with the minerals planning authorities, shall be required to undertake from time to time surveys of current mineral workings and dereliction created by past mineral workings.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I discuss at the same time Amendment No. 11, the Scottish equivalent, and perhaps I might at the same time comment on No. 33, which stands in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford. They are all on very much the same point. In Committee, Lord Nugent moved an amendment broadly similar to the one I am moving and to the one he proposes to move later, No. 33. It was designed to ensure that a national survey of mineral workings and derelict mineral workings should be carried out, and at the time the suggestion was supported by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, from the Liberal Benches and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, from the Cross-Benches. At that stage the Minister replied:
"Ministers will shortly be giving very careful consideration both to the need for a new derelict land survey and also for

1547
survey work more directly connected with mineral workings and the provisions of this Bill … This is something which we take seriously, and I am hopeful that we can get certain moves in this direction. I cannot commit the Government today, but there is no doubt at all that the Government are very sympathetic to this".—[Official Report, 16/2/81; col. 519.]
In the light of that assurance, I am concerned because no Government amendment to that effect has been tabled for this stage; I waited to see if one was put down before tabling one myself, and this amendment is intended to fill the breach. It is restricted to mineral workings and derelict mineral land, although I believe strongly that another survey of all derelict land is necessary if we are not to waste precious national resources.
I am pleased to see the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, but I would say, with respect to him, that my amendment is rather better in that it allows, first, for periodic reviews while his refers only to "a survey" of all former workings, which would be a once-and-for-all review, as his amendment does not contain the words "from time to time". Secondly, my amendment contains a reference to a review of current mineral workings, and that would provide valuable information when it comes to implementing the provisions of the Bill, as well as information on the historical dereliction point about which the noble Lord and I, along with other Members of the Committee, felt strongly.
Thirdly, my amendment requires the Secretary of State to carry out such surveys in conjunction with the mineral planning authorities. That is important because it would mean co-operation between central and local government rather than there being just a direction from the centre. Fourthly, my amendment covers dereliction caused by mineral working occurring outside the site for which planning permission, if any, has been granted. Although those are particular points, the basic intention is almost exactly the same.
I cannot stress too strongly that a formal commitment to a national survey must be made in the primary legislation; in this case, ministerial assurances are not sufficient. However sincere and well-meant they may be at the time, they can always be overtaken by events. Further, whichever party may be in power, it is constantly pointed out that spoken intentions are not the same as words in legislation, and of course Hansard cannot be referred to when it comes to interpreting legislation. Whatever may be stated in Hansard, although extremely useful, it is not the same as having a provision in the primary legislation. On an issue such as this, which the Committee considered extremely fundamental—like so much in this Bill which cuts right across party lines—the Government should accept that such an amendment is necessary. I hope the wording I propose is acceptable, but at the end of the day I would not object if the Minister preferred the wording suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent. We are aiming at the same thing and we should choose the best wording we can.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I too will, with permission, speak to this amendment and the others to which the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, referred. Since this matter was discussed in Committee we have given much
1548
further consideration to the need for a survey of dereliction caused by past mineral working to supplement the information in the 1974 Derelict Land Survey. We have also been considering the need for a survey of current mineral working to provide a datum base against which it will be possible in later years to judge how far the provisions of this Bill are proving successful in preventing the creating of new dereliction. We have now decided that it would be desirable to carry out a survey of current and recently completed mineral workings in conjunction with minerals planning authorities, and we shall shortly be consulting the local authority associations about this survey and its possible timing.
I wish to stress that it is our intention that the proposed survey should cover all sites where mineral working is currently taking place and all those where such working has taken place in the past and where restoration is inadequate or incomplete. There may also be a separate derelict land survey similar to the one conducted in 1974, and of course we shall ensure that there is no unnecessary overlap between them. As I said, on timing we want to consult the local authority associations, but my present intention is that that survey should begin early next year.
With regard to the noble Baroness's proposed new clause and that proposed by my noble friend, the position in Scotland is different because the agency there operates on an on-going programme of survey and restoration of derelict land and in this context considers specifically the problems of former mineral workings. The noble Baroness is pressing for the imposition of a statutory obligation on the Secretary of State to undertake surveys of this nature. She wants such an obligation written into the primary legislation. I seriously question whether that is necessary. Governments undertake many surveys on a non-statutory basis. Indeed, the Derelict Land Survey itself was carried out in just that way, and I cannot see why we should not be trusted once again to do what is needed.
I have given, and I give again, the firmest possible assurance about our immediate intentions, and I have no doubt that we shall wish to repeat the exercise in a few years' time. If the noble Baroness considers that by then it is possible that we shall no longer be in power, I can only assure her that she is wrong. In any event, I am sure she is not suggesting that a Government of her persuasion would be less diligent than we in this matter.
1 should also be a little disappointed if the noble Baroness should press for a statutory obligation of this nature before there had been any opportunity for local consultations with the local authority associations. If the survey is to be undertaken in conjunction with them—and I am sure that this is right—it would be quite wrong to present them with a fait accompli written into the Bill.
I understand the reservations and concern of the noble Baroness. She approves of what we plan to do, but like my noble friend, she simply wants to be quite sure that it sticks and stays. I am sure that she will read carefully in Hansard what I have said—as she always does. My remarks may not satisfy her entirely. I have great hopes that the noble Baroness will be satisfied on the point, but, if she is not, I hope

1549
that at least my noble friend is satisfied and will feel that we have tried to meet his point. Perhaps even the noble Baroness will accept my assurances and not press for a statutory obligation to be imposed on the Secretary of State.
6.22 p.m.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, allow me to confirm that I am quite happy to debate my two amendments, Nos. 33 and 34, with the amendment of the noble Baroness, Amendment No. 9. I thank the noble Baroness for so effectively opening the debate on this matter and for making the points with which we are all concerned, to the effect that there should be a survey of past dereliction in particular. The noble Baroness made the point that my amendment is less strong than hers because I seek only a single survey. I was optimistically supposing that since there is to go on to the statute book such a good piece of legislation, so that effective restoration will be assured, no dereliction will arise in the future from current workings and there will be only existing dereliction to tackle. I am entirely with the noble Baroness as regards the practical end that we want to reach. We certainly want to ensure that no new dereliction arises, or that if by some awful accident it does, it is dealt with.
With regard to my noble friend's reply, I must of course recognise the cogent point made by the noble Baroness to the effect that there is nothing like having the provision in the Bill to make sure that what is required is carried out. I also take the point that what is said in your Lordships' House has no binding force in this regard. One must agree that that is the case. On the other hand, my noble friend has said that the survey is to begin next year. One seldom sees Governments moving as fast as that. My only anxiety in the matter would be that, bearing in mind that my noble friend has had such a brilliant career in his office, he is almost certain to be promoted in the course of the year and therefore we should not be able to attack him and hold him to his word.
However, joking apart, I consider that a commitment to start the survey next year would be effective. The survey would be undertaken within the lifetime of this Parliament. I do not doubt that it will be carried out. My noble friend is perfectly right: the survey must be undertaken by way of a partnership with the local authorities. It will be a big undertaking. It will not be a matter simply of recording the condition of dereliction on the various sites, which, heaven knows! is bad enough. It will also be a matter of deciding what work is needed in order to restore the sites. Some of them will have to remain water-filled. There simply is not enough material to fill them all in. If they remain water-filled, how are they to be used in the future? If they are not water-filled, what is to happen to them? Would they be added to farms, or perhaps put to recreational use? All such questions have to be worked out as part of the survey. Then there must be devised a programme of how to tackle the work over a period of years when the money for doing so becomes available.
Personally I am disposed to accept my noble friend's assurance about the survey starting next year. I regard this as a firm assurance, and it is the next best thing to having a statutory obligation in the Bill. So I should certainly advise my noble friends on this
1550
side of the House that this is good enough. The local authorities will be very pleased to have this assurance—they did not really think that they would be given it—and my noble friend is to be congratulated upon geeing up his department to the point where it is willing to undertake the survey. Carrying out the survey will make considerable demands on high-class professionalism.
So I must thank my noble friend for what he has undertaken to do. My advice to my noble friends—and I hope that the noble Baroness will feel the same—is that if we accept this valuable assurance we would not be chickening out.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, is it not true that most of the counties that have large areas of dereliction have already made surveys of the areas within their structure plans? Certainly this has been done in my county. Furthermore, such surveys have in particular been carried out in connection with the 90 per cent. Government grant for the removal of waste heaps.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I have no objection whatsoever to the amendment of my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford, but I am slightly alarmed at the amendment of the noble Baroness in relation to current mineral workings. If in what he is to set up the Minister is to be guided by the amendment of the noble Baroness—we have no objection to the principle—rather than by the amendment of my noble friend Lord Nugent, bearing in mind that the Minister said that he will consult the local authorities, can he give me an assurance that he will consult also the mineral operators? It could make quite a difference for the mineral operators if they were to know when they were to be surveyed. It would seem to me that there is nothing worse than a local authority official travelling perhaps 30 miles and back in a large car merely to ask a question or to see whether a gate is closed. I hope that my noble friend can give me the kind of assurance that I seek.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I would say that I am always glad to give an assurance of consultation since, as I have said so many times in the House, it is only through maximum consultation that we can produce the best Bills. I readily undertake to do that. With regard to the point made by my noble friend Lord Gisborough, I would agree that much of the work is done by those who carry out the structure plans, but if one considers the country as a whole, rather than a single area, one sees that the need is very great. Without question, the survey will bring out this point, and that is why it is certainly worth undertaking.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, the Minister has made a very persuasive speech, and as I said earlier, I have no reason to believe that what he promises will not be done. I am sure he agrees with me that this matter has nothing to do with the question of which Government are in power; rather it is a question of what should be included in legislation to be implemented by whichever Government happen to be in power at the material time. I still feel that the obligation ought to be written into the legislation.
The object that we have in mind here can be expressed

1551
quite simply. The amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, and my amendments seem to be perfectly well drafted, but if a question of drafting arises, I am sure that either of us would be quite prepared for the parliamentary draftsmen to see whether the wording could be improved. We should have no objection to that. What I object to is this sort of resistance to putting into primary legislation something which ought to be there.
I accept the point the Minister made that other surveys have taken place in the past, and that they have been done in this way, but this is a new piece of legislation. I repeat again what I think we have all said either in Committee or on Second Reading, that so far as minerals are concerned it is the first piece of legislation of its sort since 1947, and I really am most anxious that we should make it as watertight as possible and as forward-looking as possible: because we should be "kidding" ourselves if we think we are going to see another piece of mineral legislation at all. There will not be room in anybody's legislative programme for probably the next 20, 30 or 40, or it could even be 50 years. Therefore, I am very reluctant to let it go without trying to make it better than it is at the moment, even taking into account what the Minister has said.
On Question, amendment negatived.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 23, line 24, after ("period") insert ("or
(iii) are authorised by planning permission but have not been begun;").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 11 not moved.]
Clause 5 [Imposition of after-care conditions on planning permission]:
6.33 p.m.
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 4, line 22, at end insert—
(""aftercare condition" shall also mean a condition requiring that such steps shall be taken, during such period as may be specified for each step as may be necessary to ensure that the land has been made suitable to sustain trees, shrubs or plants.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, at the Committee stage on 5th February, at col. 1343, I moved an amendment to extend the provisions of the clause on after-care to cover land for use for amenity purposes. Those who spoke on the amendment at that time included the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, and the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley. I think the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, spoke; and, although he could not be here, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, sent me a note about his views on it which were supportive of the amendment, which I quoted at that time. So I think one can say that this amendment had support from each of the three parties in your Lordships' House, and also the Cross-Benches.
The noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, said then, at col. 1346:
"We accept that there might be a particular problem in relation to community tree planting … while this amendment is
1552
too wide to be acceptable, we should like to see whether we can come up with one which would be acceptable".
Unfortunately, so far the Government have not come up with an amendment and the amendment which I now move seeks to rectify that omission; because I accepted at the time (and I think we all did) that it was extremely difficult, perhaps, for the Government to accept something as wide as "for amenity purposes".
However, I have now received a letter from the noble Lord the Minister which I find generally reassuring on this point, since he gives a commitment that an amendment will be tabled at Third Reading, and explains that the delay is due to other pressures on parliamentary counsel. I must confess I am disappointed, because as I understand it we are now going to be tougher in this House about amendments being moved on Third Reading, although the Government will be able to do so, obviously. But in moving this amendment I should like to have a verbal confirmation from the Minister that the Government are moving an amendment along these lines; and perhaps he could tell me whether, since he wrote the letter to me, he is able to add anything to it. I would be grateful if he could give the House some indication of the lines along which the Government are thinking, because I want the amendment but I also want to save having a long debate on this point, about which so many of us feel so very strongly, on Third Reading. I beg to move.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, as the noble Baroness rightly says I wrote to her to explain why, although we fully intend to make an amendment on these lines, it has not yet been possible to come up with a suitable form of words. I gladly assure the House that it is my intention to bring forward such an amendment on Third Reading; and, of course, an equivalent one to the Scottish part of the Bill.
I am afraid that the noble Baroness's amendment is unlikely to be quite adequate as it stands because of the various references to "after-care condition" in the succeeding subsections of Clause 5 and elsewhere in the Bill, but I hope that with the assurance I have given of a Government amendment being tabled, certainly in time for Third Reading, she will feel able to withdraw her amendent now. While I am speaking I wonder whether I may add that it is also our intention to make one or two other amendments to Clause 5 at Third Reading, in particular to fulfil the promise that I made to my noble friend Lord Mottistone in relation to making subsection (8) of this clause more workable, and to make it clear that after-care provisions can be subject to a scheme agreed between the mineral planning authority and the operator.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, with that explanation from the Minister—and may I say how glad I am that the Minister is also thinking of other amendments; and, in particular, the one he mentioned about co-operation and consultaton is one with which I would agree entirely—I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Gisborough Lord Gisborough moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 5, line 25, at end insert—
("; and
(c) the owner of the surface land").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, at the Committee stage, at col. 1353, the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, said:
"…the fact that the owner is notified of an application and has the opportunity to make representations to the authority, should cover it…".
He was referring to the question whether the owner should be consulted. He went on:
"If, however, my noble friend feels that there are reasons why that is not so, I should be glad to hear of them".
My Lords, these are the reasons that I should like to give.
While the operator must comply with conditions as to after-care, the owner must not only be able to resume subsequent occupation but may also be required to implement the conditions himself if the operator fails to restore by reason of his going bankrupt. It is essential, therefore, that full regard should be paid to the owner's future interest. It is therefore vital that the planning authority should consult the owner before issuing conditions. The planning authority will be extremely unlikely to have mining experts on its staff, and even the Ministry have inadequate experience of the after-effects of restoration—and they are the people who are needed to advise the planning authority. Meanwhile, the owner will have useful knowledge of streams, local problems of geology and other information like the direction of streams, and so on—information which is vital to good restoration. It is simply not good enough that he should just be informed of the conditions, as it is anyhow by then too late for the conditions to be changed if an error is found without a claim for compensation by the operator.
Further, while the operator is consulted in the very respect of his application and has the ability not to proceed if the conditions are too onerous, the owner, even though he may be called upon to implement those conditions if the operator goes bankrupt, has no say in the conditions affecting his own responsibility. Further, having regard to his ability to make representations, which is more a theory than a practical likelihood, I am informed that some planning authorities will not accept an individual approach other than by written statement.
A further problem is that most mining leases now have the right by the operator to terminate the lease in 12 months, giving further risk to the surface owner. Going to detail, the owner may require, and write in a lease, restoration and, for example, seeding with, perhaps, cocklepark mixture. What does the operator do if the mineral planning authority writes it in that he has to finish off with a clover ley? This is a very important matter, because through a default of the operator the owner is being bounced into a huge financial obligation of restoration without even being consulted. Consultation is the word. No appeal is asked for, no change of intent of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I resisted a very similar amendment at Committee stage, and I regret that I must do so again. We accept that it may well be sensible to consult the landowner, and indeed the operator, as an after-care condition. But there are other cases outside the mineral field where such consultation is equally sensible, but it is never actually
1554
required in the planning legislation. We will commend the practice of such consultation to mineral planning authorities, but we can see no reason for making this the first occasion on which it is required by statute. It should be remembered that the landowner is already notified of the application itself, and in this way does have the opportunity to make his views known. I can understand my noble friend's anxiety, but it is covered in the way I have suggested.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, could my noble friend say whether the other examples that he mentioned also carried with them such a very big financial liability as there would be if the operator goes bust and is left with everything to pay?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, when I was talking about planning legislation in general, it covers such a great field that I would not be in a position to say that there were no situations at all. I take the point my noble friend is making and I am sure it is a valid one. I still feel we do not want this to be the first time where we put something like this into legislation. In view of what my noble friend has said, we will have a look at this point and if there is something arising from it that gives cause for concern we will look at that. I cannot go further than that.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, would my noble friend think that this is something that could start entering legislation? Until the middle of this century nobody would dare not consult with the landowner. He was an important character. Nowadays, landowners are not treated with such great respect by local authorities or by anybody else, and it could be that the time has come, with the move in history and the change of everybody's relevant position, that for the first time since before the Roman time, the landowner is required to be protected by legislation. I throw that out as an idea. I have no brief for the landowners; but to say that it is the first time is not necessarily an excellent argument.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, I will have to withdraw the amendment but I hope, if my noble friend cannot find some way around it, that he will find a way of absolving the owner who has not been consulted from the risk of having to restore the land himself. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.43 p.m.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 5, line 32, leave out ("an") and insert ("a restoration or").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, may I speak also to Amendment No. 15, to which this amendment is a paving amendment, and to Nos. 19 and 20, which are the two Scottish ones? This relates to an amendment, No. 51, which the Government put down at the Committee stage which I then welcomed as being more than sufficient to cope with the particular tidying up of the Bill that I was seeking with Amendment No. 32. However, looking more carefully at No. 51, as now

1555
inserted in the Bill, we think it could be further improved for complete clarity. After-care has been for some time a natural sequel to restoration conditions and the industry has co-operated accordingly. Now that it is to become the subject of normal statute, the industry is concerned to examine the letter of the statute however much it, and presumably the planning authorities, hope that the letter of the statute will not kill the spirit of co-operation.
These amendments are designed to ensure that an operator can obtain a certificate to show when restoration or after-care conditions have been satisfied and liabilities on that count fully discharged. Restoration certificates will also implicitly establish the period for any after-care conditions. On the understanding that this is to clarify the Bill and to tidy it up, with no hidden sense behind it, I hope that my noble friend will see his way to accepting these amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I have considered carefully my noble friend's proposal to extend the certification procedure to restoration conditions as well as to aftercare ones, but on balance I do not think this is necessary nor do I think it right to impose this additional duty on mineral planning authorities. The certification procedure has been introduced for after-care because there may be genuine uncertainty as to whether the condition has been complied with during the five-year period, and it is to the benefit of all that the mineral planning authority should state whether or not it is satisfied. A restoration condition as defined in this clause is much narrower, in that it merely refers to the use of topsoil, subsoil or soil-making material. It seems to me that there is much less doubt as to whether or not this has been done to the satisfaction of the mineral planning authority, and, although of course the mineral planning authority has complete discretion to certify that the restoration condition has been complied with it if wishes to do so, I must resist this amendment which would make it a statutory duty. I hope that, with this explanation, my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, while I accept what my noble friend has said, I should like to read what he said and perhaps at a later stage of the Bill we might return to the charge. I am not sure that the wording here (which is better than it was originally) is yet right to satisfy the situation fully. With those words at this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 15: not moved.]
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness White): My Lords, I have to inform the House that should Amendment No. 16 be agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 17.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 5, line 42, leave out from beginning to ("the") and insert ("which is enforceable against him by").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I should like also to speak to the Scottish
1556
equivalent Amendment No. 22. When in Committee I moved Government Amendment No. 55, it did not quite receive the rapturous reception I had been expecting from my noble friend Lord Mottistone. Accordingly, we have looked at this provision again, as I see my noble friend has tabled his own Amendments Nos. 17 and 23. I hope the House will agree that this will remove an unintentional limitation in the amendment which I moved in Committee so that contracts between a previous owner of the land and the mineral operator are not excluded. I beg to move.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for trying to improve the Bill. I am in the difficulty that I should like, with permission, to take my amendment, No. 17. I think it is better than the Government amendment. To talk in the first place of the Government amendment, we wonder whether the Government intend to tip the scales against the operator to the extent that this clause, even with my noble friend's amendment, will do. A typical arrangement between operator and landowner provides for the operator to extract the minerals, to restore the land to the extent of replacing topsoil and planting grass; and to sell it back to the original owner at a price reduced to take account of its condition. Existing contracts will have been made without the knowledge of subsection (12), which this amendment and my amendment seek to change, and therefore will contain no provision relevant to that proviso which it contains.
It would seem that a landowner, having enjoyed his minerals royalty and bought back his land at a depressed price, may under this provision be able to compel the operator to foot the bill for further improvements which it was intended when the arrangements were made should be for the landowner's account. I should be grateful if my noble friend could tell me whether that is what the Government intend. As I understand it, furthermore, the mineral operator, under the circumstances that I have just described, cannot claim compensation.
So I turn now to my own amendment, Amendment No. 17, and suggest to your Lordships that the shortcomings which I have just outlined in the Government amendment are, we hope, overcome in Amendment No. 17. I should be very grateful if my noble friend could say whether he would agree with that interpretation of the two of them.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, so far as Amendment No. 17 is concerned, I fear that this is defective in that by removing the words that my noble friend proposes, the following reference to "that person" in line 43 is made meaningless. There is not much that I can add to what I said before. I noted my noble friend's concern, as I said a few moments ago, when I moved Government Amendment No. 55 in Committee. In moving our amendment today to remove the limitation that the contract must have been made between the two parties, I had hoped that my noble friend and the House would feel that this meets the point. Whether or not any other observations that he makes adversely affect this, as he often and fairly says that he will read what has been said and consider it, I shall do the same, but I cannot go beyond that today.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, in the circumstances I cannot call Amendment No. 17. The next amendment is Amendment No. 17A.
6.52 p.m.
Lord Gisborough Lord Gisborough moved Amendment No. 17A:
After Clause 5, insert the following new clause:
("Agreements
. A Mineral Planning Authority may enter into an agreement with any person interested in the land for regulating the development and use of the land of a mineral working site in lieu of the making of a suspension, or supplementary suspension order or revocation order, to secure the future use of the land for amenity, recreation or sport.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the definition of restoration conditions of a site after working is still indefinite but assumes the restoration by use of subsoil and top soil. It is only after-care condition for which planning conditions are attached. This amendment returns to the point made in Committee that agriculture or forestry may not necessarily be the best form of restoration. Apart from an amenity project, it might be appropriate to produce a car park of rolled flat stone, to leave the area as a motorcycle scramble or even to leave a huge hole in the ground for eventual fill by waste materials. The planning authority have great power to force operators or owners to enforce costly reinstatement while all the time there may be easier and less expensive treatments suitable for the site. The Minister said he had an amendment which dealt with the whole question and so perhaps this amendment may be proved surplus. I beg to move.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, we believe that this amendment is unnecessary. Under Section 52 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 a local planning authority may enter into an agreement with any person interested in land in their area for the purpose of restricting or regulating the development or use of the land, either permanently or during such periods as may be prescribed by the agreement. Mineral working sites will certainly include land and it is of course possible to use such an agreement to cover the future uses mentioned by my noble friend and for it to be used in lieu of an order under some other section of the 1971 Act. I hope that, with that explanation, my noble friend will be satisfied and feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 21 [Imposition of after-care conditions on planning permission]:
[Amendments Nos. 18 to 21 not moved.]
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 26, line 11, leave out ("made between him and") and insert ("which is enforceable against him by").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this with Amendment No. 16. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 23 not moved.]
Clause 6 [Duration of planning permission]:
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 7, line 17, leave out ("sixty") and insert ("thirty").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I come back after a great deal of consideration with an amendment which was discussed on Committee. I listened very carefully and read again what the Minister said. I am afraid that I still remain very concerned indeed that workings which may well have gone on for decades and decades will now be allowed a further 60 years' operational life under the provisions of the Bill. This could add up in some instances to 100 years or more. The extraction of minerals, particularly when it is not carried out under the conditions that nowadays would automatically be required, could be, as has been said on various clauses of this Bill, a major disruptive influence on the lives of people in local communities—even those several miles away who have to live with the lorry traffic.
On Committee the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, wanted to remove the 60-year period giving such workings indefinite future life, while I wanted a 30-year period, which certainly has the support of some of the local authority associations. The Minister in reply to this (at column 1362 of Hansard for 5th February) said that this was a case where he held a middle position between myself and the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone. I can see his problem and that the middle position is a compromise; but, after careful reflection, I do not believe that the fundamental issue of the quality of life of the community (which is what this is all about) can be a matter of compromise.
If existing workings which operate without time limit are to go on, it seems to me that 30 years would be extraordinarily reasonable. It would then be possible for futrher permission to be applied for, and for the Secretary of State, in certain circumstances, to determine those applications. If the minerals industry are generally concerned about their relationships with the community—and they have expressed their thoughts about this on several occasions during consideration of this Bill, and I think it was discussed across the Floor with the noble Lord, Lord Boardman—certainly the responsible minerals operators, of whom there are a great many, are concerned with the environmental consequences of their work.
This is an amendment which they could also readily accept. It will introduce certainty in the minds of local people. On a previous amendment the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, referred to the anxiety of local people in a community. One has to look at that side as well when talking about local authorities. In this area this is also extremely important. I very much hope that the Government have thought about this again and that the Minister, even if he will not agree to it on the spot now, will have another look at it and perhaps move away from the position where he is trying to keep a balance, a compromise, between the "unto eternity" side and the 30 years that I have proposed, rather than come down in favour of the 60 years. A number of things have come out during our discussions, expressed in other amendments and in other clauses which are very relevant, and, even if the Government agree to 40 years, that is better than

1559
60 years, which seems to me to be a very long time. I beg to move.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I fear I cannot help the noble Baroness. It is true we were trying to get a balance somewhere and we are still in that same position. It seems to me that that is the right thing to do. I said in Committee that some time limit should be placed on all existing workings so that we are no longer left with mines and quarries with an indeterminate life. However, I am also very conscious of the industry's long-term planning needs, as I have said on so many occasions during the passage of this Bill through your Lordships' House. When operators have received permissions with no time limit upon them in the past, they clearly expected to be able to go on working those quarries to the end of their useful life—and, of course, they would have had a right of appeal when permission was granted had too short a life been imposed. I do believe that 30 years is too short for some existing mines and quarries and that the time limit of 60 years, which was the period recommended by both the Stevens Committee and this Government, should be retained. Therefore I cannot accept the noble Baroness's amendment.
On Question, amendment negatived.
[Amendment No. 25 not moved.]
Clause 9 [Orders prohibiting resumption of use and orders relating to suspension of use]:
7.2 p.m.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 9, line 23, at end insert—
("; and
(c) that neither of the following circumstances exist:—

(i) A reasonable prospect that such development will be resumed within a period of ten years; or

(ii) The site of such development forms part of the reserves of an adjacent active and permitted working and there is an intention to work the site during or at the end of the life of that working".).

The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 26 is a rather improved version of Amendment No. 106, which I moved in Committee. There is a very strong reason for this, of which I have made my noble friend aware. I understand that he is sympathetic to the idea of it and perhaps might consider this further. It might be for the convenience of the House that I should not explain to your Lordships in detail why this amendment is a sound one if my noble friend can confirm that that is his thinking at the moment.
Lord Bellwin: Yes, my Lords, we do have some doubts about the precise way in which this should be done, but we are sympathetic. We want to consider this and I gladly give my noble friend the assurance that we will do so if he will withdraw his amendment.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I should just like to say that I also understand the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone. I agree that the way in which it is drafted at the moment is still far too wide and when the Minister is looking at it I hope he will take very clearly into account that local authorities, in deciding whether
1560
or not a prohibition order is appropriate, would take into account the possibility of future working on that site from an adjacent operation. Therefore to place such requirements in primary legislation could prove unnecessarily restrictive in practice.
Again, if we are talking, as we have in connection with previous amendments, about balance, then I think it is very important that, although the principles behind these amendments may be accepted, one has also to be very careful about not restricting the local authorities, and also, to accept that from the way the rest of the Bill is drafted, it does not seem to me that there would be the opportunity or desire for them to exercise this power unreasonably. They would also be subject to the confirmation of such orders by the Secretary of State; so I hope that the noble Lord will take these points into account when he is trying to draft something which relates to the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, with my noble friend's assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 12, line 30, after ("unless") insert—
("(a) all the persons who are required to be notified under subsection (3) of this section have notified the authority in writing that they do not object to the proposed order or supplementary order; or
(b)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is another version of Amendment No. 131, which my noble friend agreed had merit. Indeed it had the blessing in principle also of the noble Baroness, Lady Birk. I have noticed that no Government amendment is tabled and I wonder therefore whether the Government will accept this. I beg to move.
Baroness Birk: Yes, my Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, is quite right. I did support this and it still seems to me to be perfectly all right in principle. Regarding the wording or the drafting, perhaps we might hear what the Minister has to say.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I certainly welcome, as I said in Committee, a streamlined procedure for the coining into operation of suspension orders, if that could be done without leaving weaknesses. Unfortunately, we have yet to come up with a satisfactory answer. My noble friend's amendment today seems to have two main weaknesses. First, there is no procedure whereby those entitled to be served with notice are actually told that the order has come into effect; and clearly it is essential that everyone should know that date. Secondly, there would be no way of knowing whether all those people who are—
"required to be notified under subsection (3)"—
have actually been so notified and therefore have had the opportunity to write and say they have no objection. As currently drafted, the Mineral Planning Authority could never be certain that everybody who had been required to be notified had been contacted and therefore the streamlined procedure could never be used.
I hope, with that explanation, that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment, with the

1561
assurance that we will continue to explore whether a legally watertight streamlined procedure can be developed.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, with that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Gisborough Lord Gisborough moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 13, line 10, at end insert ("by reason of this Act and section 1 of the Local Land Charges Act 1975").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, at Committee stage there was an amendment similar to this, and the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, said regarding the definition of land charges that it was unnecessary and that where, in connection with the making of local land charges Section 1 of the Local Land Charges Act 1975 applies, it is automatically a charge for the purposes of the 1975 Act.
With respect, this does not seem satisfactory. I believe that one of the objects or advantages of a second Chamber is to make legislation more comprehensible not only to lawyers but also to non-lawyers. The words "local land charge", I am advised, are not in common parlance and therefore not needless of an explanation. Only real estate lawyers will grasp the full import of the term "for owners and occupiers".
Without reference to the 1975 Act the term means little to non-lawyers. It is unacceptable because the 1975 Act materially amends the 1925 and the 1972 Acts. With great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, it was interesting that during the Committee stage he had down an amendment relating to the 1925 and the 1972 Acts and even with all his knowledge and the backing of the experts behind him they got it wrong. If they can get it wrong, so can anyone else. The 1975 Act also amended the practice and responsibility of local authorities in keeping land charge registers and in the replies it gives to those who make searches of the register. There is no request here for any change of the Bill or change of the law; it is purely a matter of simplification and clarity. My Lords, I beg to move.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, when this matter was raised in Committee I did, as my noble friend said, advise that the amendment was unnecessary. We have, of course, had another careful look at this but, with respect to my noble friend, we do not think it would be right to put into the Bill what would amount to a superfluous reference having, in the opinion of my legal advisers, no legal effect. As I explained in Committee, Section 1 of the 1975 Act provides that a charge or other matter affecting land shall be a local land charge, if it falls within any of the descriptions contained in the section, and is not one of the matters set out in Section 2.
A local land charge includes any charge or other matter which is expressly made a local land charge by any other statutory provision. Thus the 1975 Act applies automatically to such statutory provisions, which will include, of course, the reference in this Bill once it becomes an Act. We looked very carefully at this, in view of the fact that this is very much a matter of legal interpretation, and that is the advice given to me. That is why I feel unable to accept my noble friend's amendment.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, I thank my noble friend again, and I must beg leave to withdraw the amendment. It is a battle between background lawyers.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.12 p.m.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 14, line 12, after ("in") insert ("on,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 32, which is the Scottish equivalent. This is a purely drafting amendment and brings this subsection into line with the rest of the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 25 [Orders prohibiting resumption of use and orders relating to suspension of use]:
[Amendments Nos. 30 and 31 not moved.]
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 34, line 4 after ("in") insert ("on").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment earlier. My Lords, I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 33 and 34 not moved.]
[Clause 15 Mineral compensation modifications]:
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 20, line 15, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I should like also to speak to Amendment No. 37. These are amendments that I moved in Committee and it was the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, who replied to them at the time. They are concerned with the regulations procedure. The answer which I then received was that there seemed no reason to depart from the usual procedure and to impose an absolute obligation on the Secretary of State. I never have believed that precedent itself constitutes a reasoned argument, and that is particularly so with reference to Amendment No. 35. No sound reason was given to me in Committee to justify the proposal that the requirement to make regulations should not be mandatory.
I shall be prepared to accept that there are certain consequential matters which flow from the second of these two amendments, but the first is the important one. Without repeating all that was said in Committee, this is basic to the regulation procedure. We do not know very much about what will be in the regulations or how they will work out. Of course we had the consultation paper, which is now getting fairly elderly, but we were hoping at the beginning of the discussions on this Bill—I certainly was—that by this stage we should have more specific information about the regulations and what would be in them. But the mandatory aspect is extremely important, particularly when we are diving into the unknown. It is for that reason, and because there has been no further information in this area from the Government that I

1563
felt I should have another go at, at least, trying to make it mandatory. I beg to move.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I fear that I can do nothing to help the noble Baroness with the first of these amendments. I shall shortly be moving Government Amendment No. 41, which introduces a new consultation requirement, as noble Lords requested in Committee, and, in addition, financial regulations such as these can be made only with the consent of the Treasury. However, I hope it will be of some help to the noble Baroness if I say that I am prepared to consider the second of these amendments, since I recognise that the contents of the regulations should include the two matters set out in subsection (2). Counsel has, however, advised that the wording of the amendment is unacceptable in its present form. I hope that with that assurance the noble Baroness will be willing to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I am delighted that the Minister will accept the second amendment. I hope that counsel will do what is required and that the noble Lord is not relying on me to find words that are acceptable. If he is, we shall go on for ever. But, seriously, I am pleased to hear that. I agree that Amendment No. 41 moved things along a considerable way, but I did not feel that the reply which I had in Committee permitted me to leave the matter as it was. With that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 36:
Page 20, line 17, leave out ("and 178") and insert (", 178, 237 and 238").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should like to speak to Amendment No. 45, which is the Scottish equivalent, with this one. This amendment is necessary because of the special position of the National Coal Board as a statutory undertaker. Sections 237 and 238 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 make special provisions for the calculation of compensation to statutory undertakers in respect of orders made under Sections 45 and 51 respectively, and it is likely that these will need to be modified so that compensation provisions similar to those for other mineral operators can be introduced for the National Coal Board. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 37 not moved.]
7.20 p.m.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 20, line 27, at end insert—
("(2A) The provisions of the regulations shall not be such that they reduce over a period of ten years by more than the amount specified in subsection (2B) of this section the amount of compensation to be paid.
(2B) The amount mentioned in subsection (2A) above shall be equivalent to 10 per cent. of the calculated Capital Value").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 38 and 46, which is the Scottish equivalent, bring me to the real core of the industry's fear of this
1564
Bill. Their fear relates primarily to two interdependent factors: first, the amount by which the compensation payable under the present law is to be abated under powers which this Bill proposes; and, secondly, the frequency with which they can be required to bear this burden. The House may be surprised to hear that, after studying the proposals in the Ministry's consultation paper, the industry concluded that operators could be faced, in effect, with a new tax unique to the minerals industry, equivalent to 20 per cent. of capital assets, and that this tax could be repeated every five years.
Discussions between the industry and my noble friend's department have revealed substantially different forecasts of the potential additional burden on the industry, but the figure deduced, even from the department's forecast which was lower than the industry's, is alarmingly high. I should be most interested to hear what my noble friend considers to be an acceptable figure and how this relates to the industry's liability under the present proposals.
As I understand it, the estimate for 1980–81 tends to indicate a potential cost to industry, on a total five-year programme, at the rate initially of £100 million in real terms. Costs will be mainly on the operations which are consequent upon review. That, as we see it, means that industry writes a blank cheque for up to £100 million on the enactment of the Bill. Can your Lordships therefore wonder that industry is alarmed at what might be imposed upon it by some future Secretary of State? That is the point which one needs to observe: it will not necessarily be the present Secretary of State, who perhaps might take industry's problems into account more closely than somebody else might in the future. In effect, Clause 15 gives to the Secretary of State unlimited powers. Do your Lordships doubt that the planning authorities and the Secretary of State would be under very heavy pressure to squeeze industry to the maximum permitted by the law in certain circumstances and up to limits above which planning authorities would have to make a contribution?
As the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, said earlier, the likelihood is that this Bill when it becomes an Act will be in force for many years to come. Though I appreciate that regulations could be changed on the way, this underpinning of the regulations which my amendment seeks to make would seem to be necessary to safeguard us through to the future.
May I make three final points which I hope might help my noble friend in arriving at a decision. First, an important sector of the industry exports over 80 per cent. of its output in a highly competitive market where slight price adjustments can have serious trading effects. Secondly, 60 per cent. of the aggregates industry's sales are to the public sector, which will necessarily pay in one way or another for increased costs. Thirdly, the effect on small businesses such as small gravel pit operators could be disastrous and would be disastrous if the amendments which I hope your Lordships will consider are not included in the Bill.
My amendments would give to operators the assurance that the burden on them and on them alone which this Bill seeks to impose could not exceed

1565
10 per cent. of their capital assets, repeated every 10 years. The industry needs and deserves this assurance. I beg to move.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, this amendment brings us once again to the subject of the compensation regulations. My noble friend Lord Mansfield said in Committee on 16th February that he hoped it would be possible for a statement on the content of the regulations to be made today. Your Lordships will appreciate that discussion of the consultation paper which we issued last autumn is still continuing, and indeed officials in my department have met representatives of the CBI and of mineral planning authorities within the last two weeks to consider the matter further. However, I hope it will be for the convenience of the House if briefly I set out our current thinking and its likely implications.
We start from the basic principle proposed by the Stevens Committee that where the conditions of a minerals planning permission are modified or new conditions are imposed, the operator should bear a reasonable amount of any loss or damage incurred by him. This is a principle which has been accepted by the industry, and which indeed is already applied in some cases on a voluntary basis. Rather than allowing what is reasonable in each case to be the subject of argument which might eventually involve the Secretary of State, the Lands Tribunal or the courts as well as the operator and the mineral planning authority, we are endeavouring to arrive at a method which will show how what is reasonable in relation to each mine or quarry is to be calculated. In other words, a compensation threshold can be determined in each case. If the total loss or damage incurred by the operator, assessed in accordance with provisions based on Section 164 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, is less than this threshold, no compensation will be paid. If the loss or damage exceeds the threshold, then the operator will be able to claim the difference between the two figures. So each mine or quarry will have a threshold for the purpose of orders made under Sections 45 or 51 of the 1971 Act. There is likely to be a different threshold for other types of order.
A method for the calculation of thresholds for quarries where planning conditions are being imposed or modified was proposed in the consultation paper. The reaction to this paper leads us to think once again that we have struck a fair balance. The industry feels that the thresholds are too high, while local authorities and those representing environmental interests are concerned that it will not be possible to achieve all that is required without the payment of compensation. So for the present we wish to stick to the proposal set out in the consultation paper.
This proposal is that for most quarries the threshold should be 20 per cent. of the mineral asset value, calculated by means of a specified formula. This asset value is to be calculated from two elements—the entry in respect of the mineral element of the quarry in the rating list, index-linked to current values, which reflects the annual rental which would be paid for the right to work the quarry, and a factor based on the expected future life of the quarry. I would emphasise that, although value based, this is not a capital valuation of the quarry but a readily ascertainable figure which
1566
can be used to determine a threshold. There would be absolute minima and maxima thresholds of £2,000 and £100,000 respectively, and before the maximum is reached, it is proposed that the percentage of the mineral asset value taken into account should be tapered so that the £100,000 level is not reached until the asset value is £1 million or more. This tapering threshold proposal has been criticised as being unfair to small businesses, as we heard my noble friend say. We are therefore considering whether it would not be better to use a straight 20 per cent. of the mineral asset value between the same minimum and maximum figures. It is also proposed that the maximum and minimum thresholds should be index-linked to their values in 1980, and various indices are currently being examined for their suitability for this purpose.
What would be the effect of our proposals in monetary terms? My noble friends Lord Nugent and Lord Mottistone, and the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, were among those who asked this question at Committee stage. The Valuation Office of the Inland Revenue have carried out a 10 per cent. sample of surface mineral workings in England and Wales based on the position at 31st March 1980. On the basis of this survey, we estimate that some 30 per cent. of quarries would have compensation thresholds between £2,000 and £4,000. Another 20 per cent. of the thresholds would be between £4,000 and £12,000, and this means that half of our quarries would have thresholds of £12,000 or less. The next 20 per cent. would take us up to £24,000, the 20 per cent. after that to a threshold of £60,000, and the final 10 per cent. of quarries would have a threshold of between £60,000 and £100,000. The 10 per cent. sample was made on a random basis, and involved some 340 quarries.
Of course, it is possible to look at these figures in two ways. The member of a mineral planning authority or an environmentalist may look at a particular quarry in his area, and conclude that not a great deal can be achieved for £4,000—and remember that three out of every 10 quarries are estimated to have a threshold of this amount or less. If the quarry is an old one, which is restricted by few if any planning conditions at the present time, it will certainly not be possible to achieve within a £4,000 threshold all that an authority is likely to consider necessary to bring the quarry to an environmentally acceptable standard. Moreover, the authority will not be able to make a further order and to claim the benefit on the threshold again for at least five years. However, we believe that the costs to be borne by the operator must bear some relation to the value of the quarry if the principle of reasonableness is to be maintained.
I know that the industry, on the other hand, is fearful of the total burden which could be imposed upon it. If we assume that the average threshold is £20,000, and that there are some 4,000 quarries in Great Britain, then in theory the industry would be required to forgo compensation totalling £80 million if every mineral planning authority imposed new requirements at every quarry up to the maximum of the threshold. Indeed, this could in theory happen every five years. However, with respect, this is an extreme and theoretical view of what could occur, and we have no doubt that the actual burden on the industry will be very much less than this. The cost

1567
of bringing modern quarries into line with current planning standards is likely to be well below the threshold level, if indeed any action at all is required in such cases. Nor do we envisage the need for a new order every five years in most cases. The requirement for orders to be confirmed by the Secretary of State provides a guard against unreasonable action, and in practice, orders will require no more than the good operator might have been expected to offer on a voluntary basis. Indeed, the real effect of these proposals is not a blanket charge on industry, but an attempt to bring the less good operator to standards nearer to those of the best.
My Lords, there are other points which I could cover, such as the need to modify the formula to deal with underground mining, the proposals in respect of prohibition and suspension orders, the need for a power to amend the basis of compensation, and the suggestion which has been made to us that we could abandon the formula entirely in favour of standard conditions which would bring a quarry up to the level of an agreed code of good quarry practice. However, I hope that I have said enough to give a general indication of the likely effect, as we see it, of our proposals as they stand at present. We shall, of course, continue to listen to representations which are made before the time comes to bring the regulations before your Lordships, but I hope from what I have said that you will agree that, once again, in this most difficult of all tasks, we are trying to strike a reasonable balance between the needs of industry and the needs of the environment.
I am most concerned at some of the fears that my noble friend Lord Mottistone has put forward, and if it was really felt that they were justified to the extent that he said then, of course, that would also affect the thinking when trying to draw this balance, but I know that he will study carefully in Hansard what I have said. I have gone to some lengths to do it carefully and in detail because I accept that it is an extremely important matter. The very last thing we want to do is anything that will have an adverse effect on industry, particularly in times like these. So with the difficult task of trying to draw a balance, I ask my noble friend whether he will feel able to withdraw this amendment in view of what I have said; and, as I have also said, I am sure he will consider this very carefully indeed.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for spelling out so carefully and so fully what he sees to be the regulations and the arguments that have persuaded him of the form that they still may or may not take. Also, I was aware of the fact that in his closing remarks he made the point that in these difficult times for industry it is not the moment to impose great additional costs, particularly when one speaks about an important sector of the industry exporting over 80 per cent. of its output, when exports are so important to this country and so difficult with the high value of the pound. It still is high.
I accept what my noble friend said about the fact that perhaps it may not be the extreme figure at which I arrived of £100 million, or that which he arrived at of £80 million, and that it might not be over a five-year
1568
period and repeated over a five-year period. I accept all those points, but I am sure that he will understand that the fact that it could be that sort of figure and that it could be that sort of rate of repetition makes it very difficult for people to plan.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, if my noble friend would give way for a moment, before he sits down I am anxious to get on the record that I recognise that this is a fundamental issue and that some concern about it still exists. If, as I hope, my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment, I intend to ask the officials to make an attempt to refine our formula so as to meet the industry's criteria while providing threshold levels which will enable the Bill to operate in the way that we intend, and we will discuss the results with both sides in the hope that a measure of agreement can be reached before the regulations come to be made.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I am grateful indeed for that further reassurance, and with those remarks I beg leave to—
Baroness Birk: My Lords, before the noble Lord withdraws the amendment, I take it that we can only discuss the amendments put forward, although the Minister has made a long and meaty statement on compensation which I shall really have to study. I think perhaps we should have had it circularised in advance because it was very difficult to take it all in. However, it was necessary and it came at the right time and we were promised that we should have it. All I can say after a first hearing, without the words in front of me, is that having considered the consultation paper on compensation, and having listened to what the Ministers have said during the passage of the Bill—and particularly what the Minister has said today—I am now largely convinced that the proposals put forward by the Government are reasonable and practicable.
As I understand it, the survey on which the points that the Minister has put forward was based was carried out on a sound statistical and methodological basis, and as I understand it the survey showed that in most cases mineral operators will be expected to pay a reasonable amount towards the costs of meeting orders under this Bill. If anything, it may well be significantly to the advantage of our operators and I appreciate—and I emphasise again—that I think it is absolutely essential that there should be the right balance between the needs of industry and also the demands of the environment and the quality of life. But I think it is important that when a scheme is introduced the figures should be updated from the start to take account of inflation between September 1980 and the coming into operation of the regulations.
I know, as indeed I think we all do, that there have been discussions with the local authority associations and the AMA and others are still considering the detailed findings of the Government survey. Obviously further discussions will be necessary, but if the broad principles are accepted it will still be necessary to make sure that, on the one hand, the local authorities are not inhibited from using their powers by massive financial implications and, on the other hand, that the

1569
operators make a reasonable contribution, but naturally again so that it is in line with their being able to carry out their operations and productivity.
However I am not convinced, before being able to study in detail what the Minister has just said, that the proposals for compensation on prohibition orders are reasonable, although he was not able to go into detail about that. At the moment, as I understand it, it is still suggested that the operators should find the first £5,000 of the cost of the imposition of any conditions on sites related to a prohibition order. That figure is really rather low today, and also it does not appear to relate to the size of the workings. I understand why the Government have adopted a different approach from that which they adopt for a review of conditions—that is the non-availability of grading information, which can be a problem. But to fix the figure at £5,000 means that if local authorities wish to impose conditions on the site so that it is effectively restored, then they will have to foot a massive bill.
It has been suggested that this must be set against loss of minerals which are sterilised by the restoration requirements. However, in these cases the operators have already written off the value of these deposits. They have chosen not to work them, and in fact they may well represent no real value at all because they are very low grade or difficult to work. In many cases they may have been left for years. There have been a lot of sites, and there still are, where prohibition orders will be appropriate where the minerals are effectively of little or no value.
These sites will not be tackled by local government if local government has to foot the total bill. That is why, as I understand it, the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, moved an amendment on Committee which he did not repeat today—because of this terrible dilemma of the cutback in public expenditure and responsibility being put on local authorities who do not have the resources to meet it. One, of course, hopes that this is going to be a transient situation, but I think it is going to be quite a long transient period. That is why it is very important that a formula be found that will relate the operator's contribution realistically to the work which still requires to be done on a site, and that as soon as possible resources will be made available to the local authorities. Otherwise, the dereliction on which the surveys are going to be made will get worse and worse, and we are going to get more and more shoddy areas which are going to affect local communities.
I rose to speak on this situation as the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, was about to withdraw the amendment because there did not seem to be any other way to comment on it. Due to the lateness of the hour I will not comment further on his amendment. I simply wanted to get on the record some of the points on compensation generally.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 20, line 30, leave out ("subsection (1) of").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I should like also to speak to Amendment No. 40 and to the Scottish equivalents Nos. 47 and 48. These are pure drafting amendments which bring the provisions in subsections (3) and (4) into line with subsection (5). I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 40:
Page 20, line 31, leave out ("subsection (1) of").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 41:
Page 20, line 40, at end insert—
("(6) Before making any such regulations the Secretary of State shall consult such persons or bodies of persons as appear to him to be representative—

(a) of persons carrying out mining operations;

(b) of owners of interests in land containing minerals; and

(c) of mineral planning authorities.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I should like also to speak to the Scottish equivalent, No. 49. When my noble friend Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 213 in Committee, my noble friend Lord Mansfield promised that the Government would consider whether a requirement to consult should be written into the Bill. We have concluded that it would be right to put such a requirement in the Bill, but to specify rather more precisely the "interested parties" referred to by my noble friend Lord Mottistone. This amendment does this. I beg to move.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, may I ask about one point? It is now established that owners of land do not get consulted. Here we have an amendment which relates to consultation with owners with interest in the land. Is that not rather an anomaly?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I do not consider it to be an anomaly. Indeed, with respect, I am not sure I am altogether following the point my noble friend is making. Perhaps he would like to put it forward again.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, the noble Lord said earlier, on a previous amendment, that if the owner was to be consulted it would be the first time. He said that on an amendment which I withdrew. Here we have a case of the owner being consulted. It seems to me rather an anomaly.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I do not think that that is so. I did not say it would be the first time the owner would be consulted. The fact is that owners of land are notified of planning applications, and hence that was the reason why they would not be consulted in that sense. It is a question of what you mean by consultation. If you are notified that an application has been made you then know what is happening and you are in a position, if you wish to do so, to take steps to do something about it. I think that is the difference.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend the Minister for following up my earlier amendment and including something satisfactory in its place.
Baroness Birk: I, too, should also like to welcome this formal recognition of consultation, particularly as it ties up with the amendments I was moving earlier, Nos. 35 and 37. This seems to me to help the situation along.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 42:
Page 22, line 6, leave out from ("period") to ("and") in line 8 and insert ("at the expiration of which the winning and working of minerals was to cease").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am moving this amendment and its Scottish equivalent No. 50 to clarify something which arose in Committee. When we were discussing what I might call the five fundamental conditions listed in Section 178C, my noble friend Lord Mottistone seemed to suggest that a condition limiting hours of working might fall within the terms of provision (v). This was certainly not the intention of the Stevens Committee, nor is it ours, and, as my noble friend Lord Mansfield said in Committee, we must resist any extension of the fundamental conditions to include such matters as modification of hours. What the Stevens Committee recommended, and we have followed, is that modified compensation should not apply where additional restriction is placed on the total life of the working. This drafting amendment modifies the provision to make it clear that it is the total life which is meant. I beg to move.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, once again I should like to thank my noble friend for this amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 43:
Page 22, line 14, leave out ("of") and insert ("or").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is purely a drafting amendment which corrects a printing error. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 29 [Mineral compesation modifications]:
[Amendment No. 44 not moved.]
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 45:
Page 39, line 38, leave out ("and 167") and insert (", 167, 226 and 227").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 46 not moved.]
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 47:
Page 40, line 6, leave out ("subsection (1) of").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 48:
Page 40, line 7, leave out ("subsection (1) of").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 49:
Page 40, line 16, at end insert—
("(6) Before making any such regulations the Secretary of State shall consult such persons or bodies of persons as appear to him to be representative—

(a) of persons carrying out mining operations;

1572

(b) of owners of interests in land containing minerals; and

(c) of planning authorities.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 50:
Page 41, line 19, leave out from ("period") to ("and") in line 21 and insert ("at the expiration of which the winning and working of minerals was to cease,").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 51:
After Clause 30, insert the following new clause:
("Rights to convey minerals by means of pipes
(1) In section 2(1) of the Mines (Working Facilities and Support) Act 1966 (which so defines ancillary rights that the court may confer as to exclude rights to convey minerals by means of pipes) for the words "or conveyance of minerals (otherwise than by means of a pipe) or" there shall be substituted the words "minerals, or, to the extent provided by subsection (1A) below, their conveyance, or for the purpose of".
(2) The following subsection shall be inserted after that subsection:—
"(1A) The rights for the purpose of the conveyance of minerals mentioned in subsection (1)(b) above are—

(a) rights for the purpose of their conveyance otherwise than by means of a pipe; and

(b) rights for the purpose of their conveyance by means of a pipe, where there was a right to convey them by means of the pipe before 1st January 1963.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I should also like to speak to amendments which are consequential upon it. I said in Committee that the Government accepted in principle Amendment No. 189 moved by my noble friend Lord Mottistone, and these amendments are the result. This new clause seeks to restore to mineral operators who negotiated ancillary rights for the purpose of the conveyance of minerals by pipeline before 1st January 1963, a right to apply to the High Court, if necessary, for the renewal of such rights.
Under the Mines (Working Facilities and Support) Act 1923 a mineral operator could apply to the Railway and Canal Commission (and since 1949 to the High Court) for rights to seek for and work minerals and ancillary rights thereto, provided he could show that it was in the national interest for such rights to be granted and that it was not reasonably practicable to obtain the rights by private agreement.
The Pipe-lines Act 1962 removed the right of the mineral operator under the 1923 Act to apply to the court for the grant of ancillary rights for the purpose of conveying minerals by pipe-line; the reason for that change was to provide under the one Act—the 1962 Act—a single and more suitable method of acquiring compulsory rights in land. In 1966, the Mines (Working Facilities and Support) Act 1966 consolidated Part 1 of the 1923 Act including the provisions dealing with the rights of working and rights ancillary to the working of minerals.
I said during the Second Reading that this Bill was part of a package of changes that the Government proposed to make, and explained why we wished to postpone the coming into operation of this primary legislation. But these reasons do not apply to this particular clause, the need for which is pressing, and we intend, therefore, that it should come into operation upon the receipt of Royal Assent. Amendment No. 58 changes Clause 32 accordingly. Amendment

1573
No. 59 extends the title of the Bill. This is necessary to ensure that the new clause will fall within the scope of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I should like deeply to thank my noble friend for responding to the request that was made during the Committee stage. I am most grateful for the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Consequential amendments—England and Wales]:
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 52:
Page 43, line 8, at end insert—
("1A. In section 36(5) (provisions applying with modifications in relation to art appeal to Secretary of State) for the words "and 30(1)" there shall be substituted the words
", 30(1) and 30A".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 52 and I should like to speak to the Scottish equivalent, Amendment No. 55, as well. This amendment is consequential upon Clause 5 of the Bill. In paragraph 1 of the schedules, we have already provided that where a minerals application is called in and determined by the Secretary of State he may when granting planning permission subject to a restoration condition also impose an after-care condition. This amendment is the equivalent provision relating to appeals made to the Secretary of State. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 53:
Page 43, line 18, at end insert—
("4A. In subsection (1)(b) of section 238 (measure of compensation to statutory undertakers) after the words "51" there shall be inserted the words", 51A or 51B".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 53. This amendment and its Scottish equivalent, No. 56, are consequential upon the special position of the National Coal Board as a statutory undertaker. There is, in fact, a printing error in the Scottish equivalent Amendment No. 56 as tabled. It should read, "49A or 49B" so as to correspond with the English amendments and, with your Lordships' permission, I shall move it in that form. As I said when moving Amendment No. 36, Section 238 of the 1971 Act makes special provision for the calculation of compensation to statutory undertakers when an order is made under Section 51, and in line with Clause 14 it is considered right to extend this special provision to prohibition and suspension orders. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
7.54 p.m.
Lord Gisborough Lord Gisborough moved Amendment No. 54:
Page 44, line 4, at end insert ("or the growing of trees for shelter or amenity").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 54. During the Committee stage I attempted to broaden the definition of forestry from that of "utilisable crop of timber". The words that I
1574
requested would apparently have also included mushrooms, so they were obviously inadequate. So this is a second attempt to alter the definition to allow forestry which is not necessarily for timber production. The point was taken on board by the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, who said that he would draw it to the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin. I do not know whether he can accept these words. If he cannot do so, can he say whether it would be within the restoration conditions for amenity trees to be planted which would, as it stands, be outside the definition within the Bill? I beg to move.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, for the convenience of the House I shall speak also to Amendment No. 57. One consequence of my noble friend's amendment would be that the Forestry Commission would be consulted on trees grown for shelter or amenity as well as those planted for commercial forestry. I understand that the commission do not want to take this on, nor indeed do I see any need for them to do so. I hope that my noble friend will feel that, with the extension of Clause 5 to cover making land suitable for sustaining trees, shrubs and plants, the substance of his amendment has already been met.
I listened just now carefully to what my noble friend said. One is anxious to be helpful in this matter because I think that it is an important point. However, I am advised that, in view of the extension to Clause 5, the substance of his amendment has been met, and perhaps in those circumstances my noble friend will feel able not to press the amendment.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for meeting that point and, if Clause 5 does do the job, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 2 [Consequential amendments—Scotland]:
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 55:
Page 45, line 13, at end insert—
("1A. In section 33(5) (provision applying with modifications in relation to an appeal to Secretary of State) for the words "and 27(1)" there shall be substituted the words ", 27(1) and 27A.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 56:
Page 45, line 23, at end insert—
("4A. In subsection (1)(b) of section 227 (measure of compensation to statutory undertakers) after the words "49" there shall be inserted the words "49A or 49B".).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 57 not moved.]
Clause 32 [Commencement]:
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 58:
Page 42, line 1, after ("except") insert ("section [Rights to convey minerals by means of pipes] above").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
In the Title:
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 59:
Line 4, after ("1972") insert ("and amendments relating to rights for the purpose of the conveyance of minerals in section 2 of the Mines (Working Facilities and Support) Act 1966").
On Question, amendment agreed to.

  EEC LABOUR MARKET POLICY: REPORT
  EEC LABOUR MARKET POLICY: REPORT
  UK PRISONERS ABROAD: ARRANGEMENTS ON RELEASE
  UK PRISONERS ABROAD: ARRANGEMENTS ON RELEASE
  LIVE FOOD ANIMALS: EXPORT DOCUMENTATION
  LIVE FOOD ANIMALS: EXPORT DOCUMENTATION