Sitting of 28 January 1985

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

    Coal Industry Dispute
    Mr. Ray Powellasked the Secretary of State for Energy what recent discussions he has had with the chairman of the National Coal Board regarding the present dispute.
    Mr. Canavanasked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement about the strike in the coal mining industry.
    Mr. Proctorasked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the current situation in the coal mining industry.
    Mr. Pikeasked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will now take steps to seek to resolve the present dispute in the coal mining industry.
    Mr. Nellistasked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the dispute in the coal mining industry.
    Mr. Eadieasked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the current situation in the mining industry.
    Mr. Adleyasked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the dispute in the coal mining industry.
    Mr. Douglasasked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a further statement on the current dispute in the coal industry.
    Mr. Willie W. Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a further statement on the coal mining dispute.
    Sir William van Straubenzeeasked the Secretary of State for Energy whether he will make a statement on the current dispute in the coal industry.
    Mr. Dormandasked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the latest position in the coal mining industry dispute.
    The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Peter Walker): I have had frequent discussions with the chairman of the National Coal Board upon the many problems facing the industry as a result of the unnecessary industrial action taken by some sections of the NUM.
    This morning, of the 174 pits, there were only 13 without men present. Coal production was substantially increased, particularly in Scotland, Yorkshire, the north-east and north Derbyshire.
    During the 19 working days of 1985, more than 10,000 further miners have returned to work.
    Coal stocks at the power stations have remained at a very high level. The CEGB has reiterated its assurance that with present coal stocks and supplies there will be no power cuts due to coal shortages during 1985.
    Fifty-two coal faces, including 30 working faces, have been lost since the start of the dispute.
    Tomorrow, officials of the National Coal Board and the National Union of Mineworkers will meet to establish whether talks can be restarted.
    The Government hope that, with the National Coal Board having offered a substantial investment programme, good pay for miners, a closure procedure better from the miners' point of view than any previous closure procedures, generous early retirement provisions and substantial resources to bring new enterprises and business

    3
    to mining communities, the damaging industrial action which has taken place without a ballot will swiftly be ended by a negotiated settlement.
    Mr. Powell: As the dove in a Cabinet of hawks, will the Secretary of State ensure that the eagle does not get her claws on tomorrow's talks about talks? Will he also give serious consideration to the termination of the contract of Ian MacGregor as chairman of the National Coal Board? He has caused the most disruption in the industry for 11 of the 17 months since he was appointed chairman. The strike was initiated by him and the Government.
    Mr. Walker: There have been seven rounds of talks, and we know the eagle that has done the damage to every one of those rounds. It certainly has not been Mr. MacGregor, who has made an offer to miners which is better than any offer since nationalisation. He has offered better closure procedures, a bigger capital investment programme and the first ever guarantee that there will be no compulsory redundancies. It is a great tragedy for the industry that, without a ballot, the dispute has taken place.
    Mr. Canavan: As it has been part of the Secretary of State's propaganda all along that no miner who wanted to remain in the industry would be forced out of his job, will the right hon. Gentleman repeat that guarantee and extend it to the 500 striking miners who have been sacked during the dispute? If the Thatcherite hawks are really looking for blood and for heads to roll, would it not be better to roll in the plastic bag the head of the person whose political appointment provoked the most damaging and longest strike in British industrial history, at a cost of more than £2·5 billion to the taxpayer?
    Mr. Walker: A great deal of blood has been lost in this dispute by violent picketing of the worst sort. Judgments on whether people should be sacked are matters for the National Coal Board; but, with any employer in this country, people who commit criminal acts cannot expect to continue to be employed afterwards.
    Mr. Proctor rose—
    Mr. Skinner: A failed banker.
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Skinner: A unit trust man.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I must tell the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) that if he persists in this behaviour, it will be unfortunate for him.
    Mr. Skinner: We know the score.
    Mr. Proctor: In what appear to be the closing stages of this dispute, will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government's attitude will not be in any spirit of revenge or victimisation, but, rather, of looking to the future for the achievement of an efficient, productive and profitable coal industry as soon as possible?
    Mr. Walker: Yes, Sir. The first objective should be to get an agreed settlement as swiftly as possible, and thereafter to concentrate on getting a united industry with united mining communities, and with the industry advancing so as to take advantage of the considerable prospects that lie before it.
    Mr. Pike: Will the Secretary of State give an assurance that, for the first time in this dispute, the Government will
    4
    play a positive role in trying to resolve it rather than take the negative approach, which they have taken all along and which was shown clearly in last week's statement by the Prime Minister, when she revealed that she was after not just victory but crushing the NUM? May we be assured that the Government's attitude will now be positive?
    Mr. Walker: There cannot have been a more positive approach than the Government's willingness to put in thousands of millions of pounds for a capital investment programme, hundreds of millions of pounds to guarantee no compulsory unemployment, a good pay offer and, for the first time, a new enterprise company designed to bring new businesses to mining communities. Throughout, therefore, the Government have been totally positive.
    Mr. Eadie: As the right hon. Gentleman has given a resume of the history of the negotiations, will he bear in mind, on the eve of talks about talks, that this dispute could have been settled on three occasions had there not been Government intervention? May we be assured that there will not be Government intervention tomorrow? We have had enough of what one might call the fingerprints and riding boots involvement of the Government. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the way to end this dispute is for the NCB and NUM to reach agreement in principle for an honourable settlement without the involvement of a third party, by which I mean the Government?
    Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman understates the number of times when there could have been a settlement of the dispute. There could have been a settlement on 6 March if a ballot had been taken by the NUM. On seven occasions since then it could have been settled, and it certainly could have been settled at ACAS when it put forward a compromise proposal. One man has always stopped a settlement being reached.
    Mr. Adley: Further to the last point made by my right hon. Friend, has not one of the saddest features of this whole dispute been the cowardice shown by the Leader of the Opposition, who failed at the beginning of the strike to call for a ballot—[Interruption.]—bearing in mind that, if a ballot had taken place, that would have avoided the necessity for the Leader of the Opposition to hurl insults at the Prime Minister and would probably have avoided the strike?
    Mr. Walker: It is true that when the dispute started one third of Britain's coalfields decided, in the normal tradition of the NUM, to have a ballot, and they balloted nearly 70 per cent. against strike action. It is also true that when Mr. Scargill changed the rules of the NUM on balloting the Leader of the Opposition said that it brought a ballot nearer. Never since then has he urged the NUM to have a ballot, and that has been a great pity.
    Mr. Douglas: Will the right hon. Gentleman reflect a little on what he said today in answer to supplementary questions, particularly about the unity of mining communities? Does he accept that those, like myself, who represent mining communities, particularly in Fife, realise that a vital factor in maintaining cohesion is the need to remember that if men come out together, they go back together? That means that any dismissal action on the part of the NCB must be a matter for discussion between the NCB and the NUM, and that the Government must keep their mouth shut about the dismissal of people or having

    5
    them remain outside the industry because of activities on the picket line. In other words, is the Secretary of State aware that this is a matter between the union and the NCB and that it should be settled by discussion on that basis? May we be assured that on that issue there will be no interference by the Government?
    Mr. Walker: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. It is for the employer in any organisation, including a nationalised industry, to decide whether he does or does not sack an individual employee, and that employer has the same right as any other employer to consider criminal actions.
    Mr. Hamilton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a large number of Opposition Members have had the greatest of reservations about Mr. Scargill's behaviour and tactics since the beginning of this operation? Do the Government understand that there is a bright future for the industry, but that the miners have deep fears about that future? Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the Prime Minister to treat these problems and grievances with much greater generosity and understanding than she has hitherto shown?
    Mr. Walker: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the mining industry has a good and real future. It requires high investment and a sense of unity in the mining industry and communities. The Government over which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister presides have been willing to allocate enormous resources of public expenditure to ensure that that takes place. I regret the fact that during the last year that did not happen.
    Sir William van Straubenzee: Since it has been necessary throughout this dispute to distinguish clearly between the mining community and the mining leadership, would it not be in the interests of the mining community and of getting the industry to work together again if the return to work were gentle, gradual and slow? That action would make the assimilation a little easier than it might otherwise be. Will my right hon. Friend therefore not necessarily be in too great a hurry to achieve a settlement?
    Mr. Walker: I am in a hurry to achieve a sensible settlement because I believe that this dispute continues to cause tremendous hardship in mining communities, takes away potential markets and loses investment that could otherwise take place. One of the encouraging features of the past few months has been the fact that, in a number of areas in which a substantial proportion of the men have returned to work, fears of divisiveness and ill feeling in the pits did not occur to the degree expected. I hope, therefore, that if there is a speedy settlement there will be a quick sense of unity within this industry.
    Mr. Dormand: Will the Secretary of State bear in mind that, although some miners have returned to work, thousands are prepared to stay on strike for a long time yet and that that—this is the important point—shows their determination to protect their jobs? When will the Government, and the Secretary of State in particular, take seriously the provision of new jobs in mining areas? Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that the £5 million about which he keeps talking is piffling compared with the amount the miners would need if the Government's pit closure programme got under way?
    Mr Walker: I understand the hon. Gentleman's anxiety. We set up the enterprise company with a capital of £5 million. The number of applications and inquiries
    6
    during the first few weeks were very encouraging. Therefore, I immediately agreed to double the capital to £10 million. I made it clear at that time that we were imposing a £10 million limit and would review the amount required, depending upon the type of action that we could take. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I place great importance on that company's activities. There is not a £5 million limit. I have now made £10 million available, and that is not the the limit.
    Mr. Andy Stewart: With expulsion hanging over the heads of the Nottinghamshire NUM members, if a democratic union has to be set up, will my right hon. Friend endorse the recognition of that union by the National Coal Board?
    Mr. Walker: I do not believe at this stage that there is any point in suggesting what might occur in certain circumstances. All I can say is that during this dispute the Nottinghamshire miners have never had a desire to split off from the NUM. Their recent attitude has been affected not by their actions but by the actions of Mr. Scargill and the executive. I notice that the delegate conference that was to be held has now been put off. There is no point in speculating about what might happen in certain events.
    Mr. Howard: Is there not already in existence an honourable agreement affecting matters at the heart of this dispute? Why should what was an honourable agreement for NACODS not be an honourable agreement for the leadership of the NUM?
    Mr. Walker: That is interesting. I have heard no criticism from the Labour party leadership, the TUC or any other bodies of the NACODS agreement, which provides procedures for closures better than those the NUM has enjoyed under any previous Government. It has provided, as ACAS pointed out, an honourable settlement of the dispute.
    Mr. Mason: Will the Secretary of State make representations to the National Coal Board, on behalf of miners who have been arrested on the picket line but not charged, to ensure that their future will not be impaired by the board? He should express the hope that there will be no victim.
    Secondly, did the Prime Minister make her views known to the chairman of the National Coal Board when she stated that she expected a written guarantee from the NUM leadership that uneconomic closures should be on the negotiating list before any real talks could take place?
    Mr. Walker: On the last point, the NCB issued a statement to that effect because, during the dispute, there have been seven rounds of talks during which the leader of the NUM has boasted that he has not moved and inch since March. Understandably, it wanted to ensure that these talks would be held on a constructive basis, where progress could be made.
    On the first point, I shall convey to the NCB the views expressed by the right hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Rost: Does not section 6 of the Coal Industry Act 1977 specifically allow the Secretary of State to make further grants to assist the elimination of uneconomic colliery capacity, and was not the then Secretary of State the now discredited right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn)?
    Mr. Walker: I am not sure when he was discredited, but it is true that those words were used in the legislation when the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) was Secretary of State.
    Mr. Benn: Is the Secretary of State aware that the most significant part of his first answer was that he made no reference whatever to Government insistence that the NUM should agree in advance to the closure of uneconomic pits, despite the briefing from Bernard Ingham to all the press? Are not signs of the Secretary of State's recognition of the strength of the NUM that more than 140,000 employees are still on strike, that the pound is at its lowest level ever, that there is an increase in interest rates of 2 per cent., and that share values have fallen 30 points today? Have not the Government a strong interest in reaching agreement with the NUM? If not, NUM members on strike will not be prepared to return to work to see the butchery of their industry.
    Mr. Walker: On the subject of uneconomic pits and the butchery of the industry, as the right hon. Gentleman is aware, during the period that he was—
    Mr. Benn: Answer the question.
    Mr. Walker: I am answering the question.
    Mr. Benn: Answer the question.
    Mr. Walker: The right hon. Gentleman will not like the answer. During that period 17,000 miners took voluntary redundancy on terms much worse than those offered at the moment. In 1978, one pit that he closed had 1·5 million tonnes of reserves and another had three to four years' reserves. Throughout this dispute the right hon. Gentleman has made wrong predictions at the expense of miners.
    Mr. Sackville: Will my right hon. Friend take steps to preserve jobs in energy intensive industries by ensuring that such industries do not bear a disproportionate part of the costs of the dispute?
    Mr. Walker: The cost of the dispute will depend on coal stocks and the need to restock at the end of the dispute. There are still substantial coal stocks at the collieries and the power stations. They are about three times what the Opposition predicted they would be. For those reasons, it is very difficult to calculate what the cost will be.
    Mr. Meadowcroft: Whatever the terms on which the dispute is settled, there can be no victors. What is the right hon. Gentleman doing to inhibit his right hon. and hon. Friends from crowing over what they believe to be a victory—which is perhaps the most crass and insensitive behaviour of recent days?
    Mr. Walker: I know of none of my hon. Friends who have crowed over a victory. I agree that considerable damage has been done to the industry, the miners and the economy by a totally unnecessary dispute. The important thing is to end the dispute as quickly as possible.
    Mr. Gerald Howarth: My right hon. Friend has graphically made clear the generosity of the NCB's offer, which is the envy of industries throughout the country. Would it not be a betrayal of the miners whom I represent and who have consistently gone to work if further concessions were to be made beyond those agreed with NACODS?
    Mr. Walker: Yes. We should constantly remind the House that miners in my hon. Friend's constituency and in similar constituencies followed the normal traditions of the NUM by holding a ballot, and they balloted overwhelmingly, at the beginning of the dispute, not to strike. They did so because of the generosity of the offer then available. That has been the reality of the dispute from beginning to end.
    Mr. Barron: The NACODS settlement has been much talked about this afternoon. Is it not true that NACODS, after hearing statements by the right hon. Gentleman and by the Prime Minister, is saying that its settlement has been put under tremendous pressure and that at present, because of what the NCB is doing, it is not prepared to sit down with Mr. MacGregor? Is not the NACODS settlement in some doubt?
    Mr. Walker: The NACODS settlement is in no doubt. If the NUM wishes to accept it tomorrow, it can do so.
    Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Is it not true that very few people wish for an unconditional surrender by either side in the dispute? Is it not also true that, bearing in mind the cost to the country and the cost in other people's jobs lost because of the dispute, no agreement should be reached that does not accept the closure of pits that have outlived their useful economic life? Only the coal miners would gain by such an agreement. Everyone else would lose.
    Mr. Walker: Throughout the history of British coal mining, uneconomic pits have always been closed. Throughout every coal mining industry in the world, such pits have been closed. It is not in the interests of miners that money should be poured into pits that have no long-term future of any description when it could be invested in the future of the industry. The issue that has kept this unfortunate conflict going has always been entirely bogus.
    Mr. Allen McKay: Does the Secretary of State not realise that the strike started because of a lack of trust in the chairman of the NCB, and that that trust must now be regained? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Government should not interfere in or comment on the present delicate stage of negotiations? Does he further agree that during the past 11 months the Government have failed to provide time to debate the whole issue? Should they not have given the House a chance to discuss the situation and to highlight some of the matters which the right hon. Gentleman believes to be beneficial?
    Mr. Walker: The reason for the dispute was very clear. The conflict started on a wrong issue and without a ballot. Mr. MacGregor put forward terms, and if there had been a ballot there would not have been a strike. As a well-known wet on such matters, when I discovered that the Leader of the Opposition felt that a debate would be embarrassing for the Opposition, I naturally felt for him.
    Mr. Terlezki: Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that when this political strike is over—let us hope that it will be over sooner rather than later—all the miners who have worked and kept the industry going, despite intimidation and threats, will come to no harm?
    Mr. Walker: Yes.
    Mr. Wrigglesworth: Does the Secretary of State agree that if the NUM is now seeing the economic facts of life, a settlement of the dispute can bring about a long-term and successful future for the industry? In regard to political

    9
    interference, what role has Mr. David Hart played in relationships between the Government and the Coal Board? Has he liaised between 10 Downing street and the Prime Minister and the NCB?
    Mr. Walker: No, Sir. As far as I know I have never met Mr. Hart.
    Mr. John Townend: Will my right hon. Friend convey to the chairman of the NCB the message that the overwhelming view of Conservative Members is that under no circumstances should miners who are dismissed for violence and for causing damage be reinstated?
    Mr. Walker: Sackings and reinstatements are matters for the employers to consider. I am sure that, like all employers, the NCB must take into consideration the criminal actions of any of its employees or former employees.
    Mr. Redmond: Does the Secretary of State agree that he knows nothing about industrial relation? Will he assure us that, in the next two weeks, he will find time to learn a little something about industrial relations and, having that little knowledge, will avoid any repetitions of the dispute?
    Mr. Walker: I always listen to the wise, shrewd and well-informed words of the hon. Gentleman with great interest. I noted every word.
    Mr. Andrew MacKay: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that it could not possibly be in the interests of the maintenance of the rule of law in Britain if those who have been convicted of serious criminal offences during the dispute were to be reinstated?
    Mr. Walker: Yes. The NCB must take the same view as any other employer towards people who have committed grave criminal offences.
    Mr. Lofthouse: When the Secretary of State next meets the chairman of the NCB, will he discuss the board's decision to discontinue its interest and investment in putting a drift mine down in my constituency, which would have coupled up Wheldale, Fryston and Glass Houghton collieries and given them a longer life? As 42 per cent. of all under-25s in my constituency are unemployed, and as they would normally have gone into the coal industry, if the Secretary of State fails to discuss that matter with the chairman of the NCB, will he advise them what employment prospects young men in mining communities can expect when pits are closed?
    Mr. Walker: I shall convey the hon. Gentleman's views to the chairman of the NCB, but I cannot comment on any specific proposal. I am glad to say that, for any area where there are pit closures, for whatever reason, we have brought into operation an important company to assist in getting further businesses and enterprises into those areas.
    Mr. Nicholls: Now that the inevitable bleating has started about allowing the NUM to cave in with dignity, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that there was no dignity for miners when they were defrauded of their right to a pre-strike ballot, that there was no dignity for policemen who were beaten up on the picket line and that there was no dignity for the families of working miners who were terrorised? Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that those factors will have to be reflected in any agreement that emerges?
    Mr. Walker: There are many miners throughout the country who are also reflecting on those facts.
    Mr. Welsh: The Secretary of State is aware that, since nationalisation, it has been the role of Ministers with responsibility for energy, and of other Ministers with responsibility for other nationalised industries, to hold the ring so that management and unions can discuss things and reach amicable agreements. In the past few months the Government and the NCB have been "two-oneing" the NUM. It is time that that finished. May we have an assurance that, if negotiations are entered into this week, the Secretary of State will go back to holding the ring and let the NCB and the NUM thrash it out and get an acceptable and amicable agreement?
    Mr. Walker: In all previous arrangements Governments might well have been willing to produce the necessary finance to get a sensible agreement, but they have also always been dealing with someone who was willing to put up sensible proposals. In this dispute, seven times—on one occasion with ACAS holding the ring—the NUM leadership, against the wishes of all of the miners who voted, has gone on with this utterly unnecessary industrial action.
    Mr. Leigh: In the light of the fact that this morning many miners were clearly dissuaded from returning to work because of the pending negotiations, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is vital that at an early stage in the talks about talks the NUM accepts that pits should be closed because they are uneconomic, lest Arthur Scargill is given a further opportunity to prolong negotiations indefinitely, thus stemming the return to work and prolonging the strike?
    Mr. Walker: Today's return-to-work figures are interesting. On the morning shift alone 840 people returned to work, which is an extremely high figure and in sharp contrast to all previous figures when talks were pending. The message to Mr. Scargill must be that by far the biggest return was in Yorkshire.
    Mr. Beggs: Does the Secretary of State accept that the dispute is resulting in higher costs to consumers in Northern Ireland? Does he agree that if the dispute could be settled at an early date a decision could be made to convert Northern Ireland power stations from oil to coal, thereby securing future jobs for miners?
    Mr. Walker: That is one of many examples of missed opportunities this year. In 1984 I had hoped that 1,000 firms would convert to coal. Alas, many firms which converted to coal are considering converting back to oil or gas. That is a great tragedy for the industry.
    Mr. Eggar: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that when the dispute is over the Government will continue to invest in the coal industry to ensure that it is competitive, supplies energy at competitive prices and provides longterm jobs for miners?
    Mr. Walker: With the quality of mining machinery and coal seams that we have, the coal industry has a good opportunity for years to come. It is the Government's great desire that the industry takes advantage of that opportunity.
    Mrs. Clwyd: Is the Secretary of State aware that 18 fewer miners returned to work in south Wales today? I am sure that he will want to join me in congratulating them

    11
    on their solidarity and determination. Does he not recognise by now that those miners will not return to work until a proper, honourable and negotiated settlement takes place, which recognises the social and economic arguments for keeping pits open?
    Mr. Walker: I know that the hon. Lady read that on the tape this morning. However, the number of miners working in south Wales is substantially higher than it was last Monday.
    Mr. Holt: In the light of the comments this afternoon and the feelings throughout the country, does my right hon. Friend agree that if the 5,000 miners who have been found guilty of criminal offences were given the opportunity to go to industrial tribunals and claim unfair dismissal it would be time-consuming, a waste of public money and totally unnecessary?
    Mr. Walker: I cannot interfere with the legal rights of individuals regarding industrial tribunals. Obviously, the NCB must be free to treat people who have committed criminal actions against its personnel and property as it considers fit.
    Mr. Corbyn: Will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to state how many power cuts or voltage reductions have taken place throughout England, Wales and Scotland because of the mining dispute? Will he ask the chairman of the Central Electricity Generating Board to give an accurate description of the cuts that have taken place as a result of the dispute, rather than always blame them on cable failures? Will the Secretary of State give the House an estimate of the increased cost of coal and oil imported to break the mining dispute? Will he comment on the story that appeared in The Guardian of today?
    Mr. Walker: I read something in The Guardian last week that was totally wrong. Voltage reductions take place every year irrespective of power stocks, and there are normally about three a year. The last figure that I have shows that there has been one so far this year. We have plenty of stocks at power stations, and in 1985 there will not be any power cuts as a result of the present level of coal stocks.
    Mr. Orme: Is the Secretary of State aware that we want to see a negotiated settlement that is acceptable both to the NUM and the NCB? In that regard, will he deplore the article in The Times of last Saturday, written by Mr. David Hart, who is an adviser at No. 10. He said:
    "The time for a negotiated settlement is past."
    Does the Secretary of State agree with that?
    Mr. Walker: The right hon. Gentleman should withdraw that. Mr. Hart is not an adviser at No. 10. The view of the Government, and certainly that of the Prime Minister, is that not only do we want a negotiated settlement, but that we believed that when ACAS intervened we would have a negotiated settlement.
    Mr. Yeoasked the Secretary of State for Energy how many employees of the National Coal Board are currently at work.
    Mr. Fallonasked the Secretary of State for Energy how many miners are currently working.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. David Hunt): I understand from the National Coal Board that today more than half of its
    12
    employees are no longer on strike, of whom nearly 79,000 are members of the NUM, representing 42 per cent. of its membership.
    Mr. Yeo: Will my hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to the courage and loyalty of those miners who have voted with their feet during the past 10 months? Is he aware that there would be widespread and fully justified outrage in the country if miners who were dismissed for engaging in criminal conduct were accepted back into the employment of the National Coal Board?
    Mr. Hunt: My hon. Friend's second point would be a matter for the NCB. As to his main point, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I use every opportunity to pay tribute to the courage and determination of those who have returned to work, often in the face of mob intimidation and violence.
    Mr. Fallon: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the seven men taken back this morning by the Coal Board in the north-east have not been reinstated but re-employed? Does he agree that it would be wrong to expect working miners to work alongside those convicted of serious criminal offences?
    Mr. Hunt: That is a very fair point, and I shall draw the views of my hon. Friend and others to the attention of the chairman of the National Coal Board.
    Several hon. Members: rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. In the interests of balance, I shall call two hon. Members from the Opposition.
    Mr. Ryman: With respect to the reinstatement of NUM members who have been on strike, is it not utterly unfair for the Government to attempt to influence the chairman and area directors of the NCB when, for 10 months, the Government have flatly refused to intervene in this most serious industrial dispute?
    Mr. Hunt: On the hon. Gentleman's first point, no, it is not unfair. On his second point, the Government intervened at the start of the dispute by underwriting the best offer made to miners since nationalisation.
    Mr. Strang: Does the Minister accept that the international competitiveness of coal has been transformed by the fact that although the pound-dollar rate was 1·48 when the strike started, it is now 1·11? Why does he not tell the Coal Board to press ahead and take advantage of the new export markets instead of trying to implement a closure programme for which there was never any economic justification and which is now completely outdated?
    Mr. Hunt: International markets depend upon the international competitiveness of British coal. That is why it was made clear at the beginning of the dispute to all those working in the industry that they had been offered the best possible deal for an expanding, competitive coal industry. Sadly, much of the momentum has been lost.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS

    Accommodation
    Mr. Dormandasked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a statement on the progress being made in providing additional office accommodation for hon. Members.
    The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): In accordance with the design brief given to the architects in the Services Committee's third report of 1983–84, the design team has developed preliminary sketch plans for phase 1 of the new parliamentary building. These plans are now under consideration by the Services Committee's New Building Sub-Committee.
    Mr. Dormand: Does the Leader of the House realise that the aspect of the matter that still puzzles most hon. Members is the time that it will take before the new offices are occupied? In those circumstances, will he give assurances that he will ignore the strident voices of some of his hon. Friends who want the development to be cancelled, and that there will be no reduction in the moneys already allocated for the work? What progress is being made in transferring staff from the Palace so that their accommodation can be made available to hon. Members?
    Mr. Biffen: I do not belive that there is any likelihood of this project being cancelled. I shall see what can be done to ensure that the execution of the work proceeds according to the budgeted time scales and with the appropriate finance. To date, it is up with the forecast. As for the movement of staff from the Palace so that more places are made available for hon. Members, those numbers have already been given. I shall look into exactly what changes have taken place to date.
    Mr. Dykes: After so much time has elapsed, is it not desirable that at long last we should provide better accommodation for visiting European parliamentarians — [Interruption.] — as do many other national Parliaments?
    Mr. Biffen: That interesting and perceptive question goes somewhat wider than the question of the hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Dormand). I should have thought that the good-natured response to it shows that it is a matter of some delicacy.
    Mr. Meadowcroft: Has the right hon. Gentleman ever investigated the possibility of providing some distance away from the House extra accommodation for research assistants? Although this is not an ideal solution, if the right hon. Gentleman has not carried out such an investigation, will he please do so?
    Mr. Biffen: The Select Committee on House of Commons (Services) is looking at the main proposition that it would be appropriate that the Palace should be, as it were, repossessed by hon. Members, but if that were to take place I hope that hon. Members would not then complain that they were some distance away from their beloved research assistants.

    Souvenir Kiosk
    Mr. Greenwayasked the Lord Privy Seal what were the takings at the souvenir kiosk in the latest year for which statistics are available; what were the takings in the four weeks to 24 December; what plans he has for the future of the kiosk; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Biffen: The takings in the four-week period and the 12-month period to 21 December 1984 were £146,073 and £414,869 respectively. These figures include VAT.
    14
    The Refreshment Department regularly reviews the range of products on sale at the kiosk, but there are no immediate plans for major developments.
    Mr. Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend please convey the thanks of all hon. Members to Jean and Joe for their excellent service? Do not the remarkable figures that my right hon. Friend has given show that already there is a sufficiently wide range of goods on sale to attract enormous custom and satisfy hon. Members and visitors? Would it not be wholly wrong to set up a new supermarket in Westminster Hall selling anything from House of Commons champagne to parliamentary tinsel?
    Mr. Biffen: The safest thing that I can do is to say to my hon. Friend that I shall convey those sentiments to the Catering Sub-Committee.
    Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Does the Lord Privy Seal share my hope that it will be found possible to dispense with this eyesore, which is derogatory to the dignity of the House?
    Mr. Biffen: I noted the comments of the right hon. Gentleman on 30 January 1984, when I took good care to hide behind the skirts of my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd). All I can say is that, again, I shall refer the comments of the right hon. Member to the Catering Sub-Committee.
    Mr. McQuarrie: Will my right hon. Friend take note of the fact that, while the figures for sales that he has given are very satisfactory, there is a distinct absence of many items in the kiosks during the busiest parts of the parliamentary Session—in July and again at Christmas? Will my right hon. Friend take steps to ensure that adequate stocks are held during these busy periods so that hon. Members can obtain supplies for their constituents?
    Mr. Biffen: I shall most certainly ensure that that point is further considered.
    Mr. Heffer: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that during the period of the English revolution, when Parliament operated as a Parliament against the King, political pamphlets of various kinds were sold in Westminster Hall? Would it not be a good idea to return to that position instead of tolerating the present nonsense?
    Mr. Biffen: Political pamphlets are normally pretty slow-moving stock. I am sure that in many parts of the House there will be sympathetic consideration of that viewpoint.
    Mr. Heffer: They would not read the right hon. Gentleman's.
    Mr. Biffen: No. I am not such a fool as to write them.

    Statutory Instruments
    Mr. Beithasked the Lord Privy Seal if he is satisfied with the present arrangements for parliamentary scrutiny of statutory instruments.
    Mr. Biffen: I believe the present arrangements to be generally acceptable to hon. Members.
    Mr. Beith: Does the Leader of the House recognise that in the time that he has been a Member of the House the amount of law made by statutory instruments has been increased dramatically and that the right of the House to debate and vote upon those statutory instruments has been

    15
    reduced dramatically? Would not the right hon. Gentleman like to be the Leader of the House who went down in history as the one who reversed both those trends by ensuring that the House took control of the making of law by statute?
    Mr. Biffen: That is an interesting proposition, but, for example, as long as we have our present arrangements with the EC a growing body of our law will be made that way. Of course, I shall always look sympathetically at any suggestions that are made to improve upon present conditions.
    Mr. Madden: Will the Leader of the House give an assurance that the Government will not in future adopt the procedure that was adopted when they introduced a charge for entry clearance certificates, which denied the House any opportunity to debate the matter? Indeed, the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments was also denied an opportunity to consider the introduction of that charge.
    Mr. Biffen: In view of the parent legislation under which action was taken, what proceeded was entirely defensible, but I take at once the hon. Gentleman's point.

    Parliamentary Proceedings (Televised Broadcasting)
    Mr. Canavanasked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will arrange for the House to have an opportunity of debating and voting on televised broadcasting of the proceedings of the House.
    Mr. Biffen: Members will wish to take account of the experience in another place before deciding upon a further debate on the televised broadcasting of proceedings of this House.
    Mr. Canavan: Is it not a poor reflection on the House of Commons that even the non-elected geriatric House of Lords is seen as more of an open House than this comparatively exclusive club? If this place really is the people's Parliament, why should the people not be allowed to see just what exactly their elected representatives are getting up to? Or are the Government afraid of more publicity being given to ex-Tory Prime Ministers who expose the disastrous policies of this discredited Government?
    Mr. Biffen: Ignoring the commercials and addressing myself to the substance of the question, I say to the hon. Gentleman that this is clearly a House of Commons matter and I think that the House will wish to proceed by taking account of the experiment now being undertaken in another place.
    Mr. Peter Bruinvels: Will my right hon. Friend take note that many of my hon. Friends do not want a debate on the possible televising of this House, and, indeed, do not want to see their House televised at all?
    Mr. Biffen: Of course I take note of that view, knowing as I do that the most rich variety of opinions will be expressed on this topic.
    Dr. Owen: Will the Leader of the House give a commitment that he will definitely arrange for a debate once the experiment is over in the House of Lords and not just leave it in this rather vague way? The House deserves to know that there will be a debate.
    Mr. Biffen: Yes, the right hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. The House will wish to consider the matter further and I hope that I shall be in a position to offer time when the occasion arises.
    Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Will my right hon. Friend take due note of the attendance of the Lords spiritual and temporal once the novelty has worn off? There seemed to be a remarkably large attendance on the first day. It will be interesting to see how many attend from now on.
    Mr. Biffen: I am sure that many in this House will monitor exactly what is happening in the other place.
    Mr. Shore: If the House is to take account, as I suspect it will wish to, of the experiment in the other place, would it not be sensible if some arrangement were made whereby the Select Committee on Sound Broadcasting of this place was able to join the similar body in the other place to scrutinise and monitor the experiment?
    Mr. Biffen: I suspect that that already falls within the ambit of the Committee, but I shall look at that constructive point further.

  CIVIL SERVICE

    Post Office Counter Services
    Mr. Spearingasked the Minister for the Civil Service what plans he has for maintaining or increasing the use made by Government Departments of the counter services of the Post Office.
    The Minister of State, Treasury (Mr. Barney Hayhoe): Decisions about the use of post office counter services are not made centrally, but by the Department concerned, which, of course, seeks cost-effective and sensible ways of meeting its requirements.
    Mr. Spearing: In view of the fact that the Government are committed to a comprehensive network of counter services, and bearing in mind that some transactions are inevitably more costly than others, is there not an obligation on the Government to ensure that the viability of the present network is not undermined? Therefore, is it not right that the Government should prevent the peeling off by individual Departments of individual transactions which may be convenient to them but which result in complete inconvenience to the public?
    Mr. Hayhoe: That may well be a matter for my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. I know that she has answered questions from the hon. Gentleman on that score. It is not a matter that falls within the responsibilities of the Management and Personnel Office.
    Mr. Peter Bruinvels: Is my hon. Friend aware that the DHSS is charged up to 38p per Girocheque passed over the post office counter? We in the House are always concerned about the gross extravagance and expense of such charges. Will my hon. Friend encourage all Government Departments to have bank accounts instead of using post office counter services?
    Mr. Hayhoe: As I said just now, it is for Departments to seek cost-effective and sensible ways of meeting their requirements. My hon. Friend should address that question to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services.

    Consultancy Inspection Review Services
    Mr. Eggarasked the Minister for the Civil Service what representations he has received about the consultancy inspection review services in Government Departments.
    Mr. Hayhoe: This efficiency unit report to the Prime Minister has been widely welcomed and more than 7,000 copies of the unit's briefing note on the report, called "Helping Managers Manage" are being distributed by Departments to their managers.
    Mr. Eggar: Has my hon. Friend noted press speculation that the Government now attach less priority to improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the Civil Service than they once did? Is that the case? Can my hon. Friend confirm that the recommendations of the report will be implemented?
    Mr. Hayhoe: There was a report in the Financial Times on 4 January, the headline of which talked of the efficiency drive in the Civil Service "faltering". However, the headline did not reflect the contents of the article. Those of us who follow the work of sub-editors in putting headlines to stories know that that is not unusual. I can assure my hon. Friend that the efficiency drive is not faltering. The recommendations of the report will be followed through.
    Mr. Dalyell: Will the Minister undertake to find out which Government Departments have placed contracts with Zeus Security consultants and other private detective agencies?
    Mr. Hayhoe: I shall make inquiries and write to the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Winnick: Is it intended that the review service will look into the ban on trade unions at GCHQ? Did the hon. Gentleman note, on the first anniversary of the ban, the huge demonstrations and protests? Is it not time that the ban on trade unions at GCHQ was lifted.
    Mr. Hayhoe: I admire the ingenuity of the hon. Gentleman in getting in that supplementary question on this question. It has nothing to do with it. As the hon. Gentleman should know by now, matters concerning GCHQ are the responsibility of my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary.
    Mr. Soley: Are there not growing complaints from the public about the deteriorating quality of service from the Civil Service? Is not this a cost-cutting exercise designed to reduce staff numbers? Is not that resulting in a lower quality of service generally and, therefore, in false economies?
    Mr. Hayhoe: It is apparent from that supplementary question that the hon. Gentleman has not read the report to which the main question refers.
    Mr. Skinner: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Prime Minister has a bit of a cheek to talk about an efficiency drive in all the other Government Departments, bearing in mind that according to a question answered by her only a few days ago it transpires that the cost of running her office at No. 10 Downing street has gone up by more than 100 per cent. since she became Prime Minister? Is it not a fact that, despite this efficiency drive, she is spending money like water to spy on everyone else?
    Mr. Hayhoe: No, it is not a fact. If anyone in the House has cheek, it is the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner).
    Dr. McDonald: Is the Minister aware that the financial management initiative has failed in its objective of tightening up Whitehall management and saving money and that the new consultative document "Helping Managers Manage" has merely added to the confusion? Is he aware, further, that no consultancy service can help the Government achieve their objectives so long as the Government sustain their attack on Civil Service numbers, opportunities for promotion and the level of pay and fail to resolve the bitter resentment about the trade union ban at GCHQ?
    Mr. Hayhoe: The hon. Lady is wrong on every single premise of that question — absolutely wrong on every count.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS

    Dining Rooms (Smoking Ban)
    Mr. Willie W. Hamiltonasked the Lord Privy Seal if he will initiate an inquiry into the desirability of prohibiting smoking in all dining room places within the precincts.
    The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): No, Sir. I am not aware of any widespread demand in the House for a change in present arrangements.
    Mr. Hamilton: Does the Minister recognise that there are ample facilities for smokers other than in the Dining Rooms? Does he further recognise that there is considerable inconvenience for non-smokers who have to sit beside smokers in the Dining Rooms? Will he treat the matter a little more seriously than he appears to be doing?
    Mr. Biffen: I am happy to treat the matter seriously, because I understand how the hon. Gentleman feels. However, it is a matter for the Catering Sub-Committee, and I shall refer the hon. Gentleman's point to it.
    Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Should we not, in fact, have reverted to energy questions?
    Mr. Speaker: Having dealt with Civil Service questions, we revert to the questions immediately before them. If we had run out of those, we would have reverted to energy questions.
    Mr. Yeo: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I draw your attention to the fact that no fewer than 11 questions were bracketed with question No. 1 this afternoon. As a result, question No. 2 was not reached until nine minutes past 3 o'clock. Can you persuade Ministers to exercise some degree of restraint in the number of questions that are bracketed together so that we do not again have a similar position to today, when question No. 18 was answered but five questions standing higher on the Order Paper were not answered?
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman's question, No. 2, was reached, so I do not think that he has any cause for complaint.
    I judged that it was the wish of the House today to give a fair run to question No. 1, which is a matter of major

    19
    importance. I apologise to hon. Members whose questions were not reached, although I think that they will understand the special position arising today.

Frigates (Orders)
3.32 pm
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Michael Heseltine): As the House knows, I have been considering the results of a tendering exercise for two type 22 frigates for the Royal Navy. Cammell Laird, Swan Hunter and Vosper Thornycroft were each invited to tender for these warships—one, the fourth replacement for warships lost in the South Atlantic, and the other an addition to the naval programme which I authorised in 1983.
The tendering process has been unusually protracted, for several reasons. I have been concerned to obtain the best available prices and tauter contract terms than we have been accustomed to in this area of defence procurement. The earlier tender replies did not adequately contribute to this objective, and it was not possible to take a decision on the order before the validity of the tenders expired. A final round of tendering was initiated in late July last year. The results of this round met several of the concerns to which I have referred, and, as with the earlier rounds, showed that the competition had been close and keenly fought.
The House will be aware that the decision on the orders for the frigates has important implications for each of the competing yards. I have considered the implications carefully, in consultation with my ministerial colleagues.
At this point, I should say that the deplorable and unnecessary industrial action which occurred last summer at Cammell Laird would, as I made clear at the time, had it continued, have excluded the yard from further consideration in the competition. The courage and determination shown by the moderate element of the work force at Cammell Laird, in the face of the intimidatory behaviour of their former work colleagues, has averted the almost certain closure of the yard at an early date.
The cheapest solution from the point of defence procurement would be to place the order for both ships with one yard, but, in the light of the wider and relevant factors involved, I have decided that an order for one type 22 frigate will be placed with Cammell Laird and for the second with Swan Hunter, and I am prepared to authorise the necessary expenditure. This offers the prospect of survival of Cammell Laird as a major warship builder; without such a contract the yard would have closed. I hope that the yard will succeed in obtaining other business in the short as well as the long term.
Swan Hunter, which is a much larger firm and is implementing a large redundancy programme at the moment, could face further substantial redundancies even with the order which I have just announced. The Government wish to do what they reasonably can to prevent this. Last autumn we embarked on the construction of a new class of frigate, the type 23, and negotiated a first order at Yarrow on the Clyde. I have decided to negotiate an order for the second type 23 frigate at Swan Hunter as soon as this can sensibly be done, and subject to satisfactory agreement on price and other contract terms. I will expect the price for this frigate to reflect the economies obtainable with an order for two frigates rather than one; and to be competitive. In order to establish this, tenders will be invited for the third type 23 order in the same time scale from all United Kingdom yards capable of carrying out the work.
Mr. Denzil Davies: The Secretary of State's statement will obviously be welcomed both by the Royal Navy and by the two warship yards which have been given orders to build the three new frigates. It will be welcomed especially because it seems likely that this will be one of the last statements on major equipment orders in defence which the Government will make in this Parliament. From now on it is likely to be cancellations all the way.
The statement has an air of desperation about it. The Secretary of State is desperate because the Treasury will demand, if we read the public expenditure White Paper correctly, larger and larger cuts in defence. He is desperate also because the cost of Trident over the past months has increased by about £200 million a month. For the Secretary of State to talk about "tauter contract terms" is cynical and ridiculous. When are we to see tauter contract terms for Trident, the costs of which have doubled under the Government?
Why was there delay in placing the order, especially for type 22 frigates, the first one of which will be a replacement for the one lost in the Falklands war? Why does the Secretary of State not make it clear that the delay stems from budgetary problems in his Department and not from industrial problems at the yards? What will be the cost of a type 23 frigate? Some of us remember that one of the reasons for closing Chatham dockyard was that type 23 frigates would be disposable vessels and would cost about £70 million. What is the cost of a type 23 frigate now? If the type 23 is not to be disposable after all, is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the Royal Navy, after he and his business partner, Mr. Levene, have finished with it, will have the necessary dockyard facilities to refit the types 22 and 23 and all the other warships of the Royal Navy?
Mr. Heseltine: I suppose that the House will sympathise with the right hon. Gentleman for talking about everything except the subject of the statement. I shall answer the relevant questions that he put to me. The delay of which he spoke has nothing to do with any budgetary problems in my Department. Anyone who has any idea of the considerations that have been brought to this matter will know that. The approximate price of a type 23 frigate now is about £110 million. We shall ensure that there are adequate servicing and repair facilities. Our problem is one of over-supply of facilities, rather than under-supply.
The House will perhaps judge the sincerity of the right hon. Gentleman's contribution to my statement against the background of the Government having increased defence expenditure in real terms by £3 billion a year, while the Labour party was committed to reducing it by a third as soon as it came to power.
Sir Antony Buck: Is my right hon. Friend aware that most of us on the Conservative Benches will welcome his statement, which will certainly end the uncertainty about these matters? When are the type 22s likely to go into service with the Royal Navy? Similarly, when will the type 23s, which will be following thereafter, go into service?
Mr. Heseltine: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend. As a rule of thumb, one can broadly assume that an order takes four to five years—probably nearer four years—to complete. That will give my hon. and learned Friend and the House the answer to his question.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Has the Secretary of State seen the statement attributed to Admiral of the Fleet Lord Hill-Norton about a scandal behind the selection procedures for Her Majesty's ships, particularly in relation to the Osprey? Is the Secretary of State confident that these procedures are proper?
Mr. Heseltine: I read the newspaper report this morning and I have asked to be kept fully informed about the matter, but I understand that the story carried in The Times this morning is a very long way from the truth.
Mr. Peter Viggers: My I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the fact that three warship yards—Vosper Thorneycroft, Yarrow and Cammell Laird—are classified as lead warship manufacturers, and, therefore, maintain appropriate design staffs? What implications does my right hon. Friend's policy have for Vosper Thorneycroft, and what expectations can the yard have of further Royal Navy orders?
Mr. Heseltine: I fully understand my hon. Friend's concern. The capacity of Vospers is well known to my Department and the yard will be able to compete for the third type 23 order to which I referred in my statement. Of course, it is competing now for other ships for the Royal Navy.
Mr. Stephen Ross: As it appears that Swan Hunter has not had to tender for the type 23, can the Secretary of State tell us whether the same sort of situation would apply to Vospers, which is a yard with a fine record of achievement, but which now faces heavy redundancies? Can the right hon. Gentleman also tell us the price for the type 22s, following the keen competition for them?
Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman will know that we do not announce the detail of contract prices that have been negotiated in any of the work for the Ministry of Defence. However, broadly speaking, the cost of the type 22—on the same basis as the cost of £110 million that I gave for the type 23—is about £140 million. I am sympathetic about the position of Vospers, but I did not see how I had the capacity easily to help that situation. I very much hope that Vospers is successful in some of the competitive negotiations that it is now undertaking.
Sir David Price: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, after a delay of 16 months, those of us who have Vosper Thorneycroft in our area are very unhappy about his decision? Will he make it a little easier by publishing the rules of tendering, about which there has been considerable doubt—especially on how overheads are spread—and the comparative costs that he received? It has taken so long that most of us have grave doubts about the integrity of my right hon. Friend's tendering procedures.
Mr. Heseltine: I understand my hon. Friend's concern, but I cannot add to what I said. The Ministry does not customarily produce a list of prices at which contracts are awarded or the list of those who have tendered but not won contracts. The position that the Ministry faces is that all three yards are subsidiaries of one company, which is sponsored by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. That company is more likely to lay down the rules under which tendering takes place than is the Ministry.
Mr. Eric S. Heffer: As a former senior shop steward at the Cammell Laird shipyard and a
24
Merseyside Member who has many shipbuilding workers in his constituency, may I tell the right hon. Gentleman that we welcome the decision to have one of the ships built at the Cammell Laird shipyard? That is good news for Merseyside.
However, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it was unneccesary for him to attack the workers at Cammell Laird, who were fighting for jobs—rightly or wrongly? The fact that they fought for jobs and went to prison because of it may have helped to determine that the order announced by the Secretary of State should be brought to Merseyside.
Mr. Frank Field: No.
Mr. Heffer: My hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) says "No." That is a matter for him. I have given my opinion. I believe that it is vital that all workers should fight for jobs, because Merseyside has been battered more than any other area in the country.
Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) has put to the House his interpretation of the events that led up to my statement today. I must tell him that he is categorically wrong. Nothing was more likely to close Cammell Laird than the action of those who occupied HMS Edinburgh, which is under contract to the Ministry. The idea that any Secretary of State for Defence would place another order with a shipyard that was occupying a ship under construction is unthinkable, and I said so at the time. The men who must be praised are those who have crossed the picket lines against the abuse and intimidation of a wholly unrepresentative minority. That minority has done so much to bring to Merseyside the reputation which it should shed at the earliest opportunity.
Mr. John Wilkinson: Can my right hon. Friend inform the House at this stage which points defence system has been selected for the last two type 22s and two leading type 23 frigates as an effective defence against sea-skimming missiles, which proved to be the main requirement for frigates during the Falklands war?
Mr. Heseltine: The vertical launch Sea Wolf system.
Mr. Frank Field: I thank the Secretary of State for his decision. His statement will be a relief to the men and women in the yard. All five hon. Members who represent Wirral constituencies have been equally active in pressing the needs of Cammell Laird. So that unnecessary myths are not manufactured locally, will the right hon. Gentleman again take the opportunity to stress what would have been the result of his decision today if the action in the yard of 37 people had been successful against two mass meetings at the yard which opposed that action?
Mr. Heseltine: I praise the local Members of Parliament on both sides of the House for drawing the attention of the Government to the problems that face Merseyside, and Cammell Laird in particular. I can state categorically that if there had not been an order for Cammell Laird that yard would have closed within this calendar year and 1,700 jobs would have gone.
Mr. Christopher Chope: Is my right hon. Friend able to say which yard put in the lowest tender, which put in the second lowest and which put in the highest? Is he able to confirm that Vosper Thornycroft was beaten on tender price? Is he aware that, if he is not

25
able to confirm that, there will be a suspicion in Southampton that Vosper Thornycroft has been punished for being able to obtain some overseas orders?
Mr. Heseltine: I appreciate my hon. Friend's concern. I am bound by the conventions of the Ministry, under which we do not provide commercial in-confidence information. No Government have ever done so. We do not provide details of prices at which contracts are let or the list of prices that fail to secure contracts. However, I can give the House an interesting figure, in that we have concluded an arrangement, in terms of the procuring of the two frigates, at a price which is lower than that which we first received on the first tenders.
Mr. Don Dixon: I, too, welcome the fact that a decision has been made on these orders. Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that the type 22 order is placed as early as possible with Swan Hunter, for without that order there will be further redundancies? Will he also ensure that the laying of the keels of these ships is not delayed for as long as the orders were? Has he any news about the auxiliary replenishment tankers, for which Swan Hunter is urgently waiting?
Mr. Heseltine: I have nothing yet to say about any further orders for which we are currently awaiting or considering tenders. However, it is my Ministry's intention to press ahead with the orders for the type 22s as urgently as we can.
Mr. Albert McQuarrie: Will my right hon. Friend say why Hall Russell of Aberdeen and Scott Lithgow of Greenock were denied the opportunity of tendering for these vessels? Can he also say why he decided not to place the second order at Yarrows but instead to give it to some other yard in England?
Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend will understand that we must make judgments about where orders are sought, and I believe that the facilities at the yards to which he referred might not have been adequate for the job that we had in mind. This is not a matter which one should try to divide between England and Scotland. We had a difficult decision to make and we hope that in the new round of tendering for the type 23 there will be a wide and competitive opportunity for firms on both sides of the border.
Mr. Dick Douglas: Will the Secretary of State be more forthcoming about orders for the type 23? I understand that he proposes to keep Yarrow as the lead yard and have the second order go to Swan Hunter. How does that reflect on the loading of Yarrow, which is designed to produce three type 23s simultaneously? Will he reflect on the employment position if further orders for type 23s are not placed there, despite the present tendering position of British Shipbuilders?
Mr. Heseltine: The position at Yarrow is not, as the hon. Gentleman will understand, a responsibility of my Department, so with some hesitancy I trespass on the preserves of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. As I understand it, Yarrow has a substantial workload which includes the construction of the first class type 23. The opportunity to tender for the third type 23 to which I have referred will be available to Yarrow as it will be to other United Kingdom yards. That aspect, together with the fact that Yarrow has tendered for
26
additional mine countermessure vessels, which will add to the potential workload, puts Yarrow in a relatively better position than some of the other shipbuilding yards.
Mr. John David Taylor: Although the largest shipyard in the United Kingdom was not involved in this tender, can the Secretary of State none the less confirm that Harland and Wolff Ltd. will be retained on the list of shipyards that are invited from time to time to tender for Ministry of Defence contracts?
Mr. Heseltine: Harland and Wolff is certainly considered for Ministry of Defence contracts, and has such contracts, but the firm is not a contender for this type of ship.
Mr. Kevin McNamara: I congratulate the Secretary of State, at a time when the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is busy dismantling regional policy, on showing his firm conviction and belief in that policy and sending two projects to areas of very high unemployment. We welcome the triumph of Stockton over Thatcher.
What exactly did the Secretary of State mean when he said that British Shipbuilders was more responsible for the tender terms than was the Ministry of Defence? I thought that the Ministry of Defence was the purchaser in this matter. It would, therefore, lay down its criteria, in the terms of the tender, that have to be met, and would not do so via British Shipbuilders. When does the right hon. Gentleman expect these ships to come into service?
The Secretary of State said that he would look at the problem as urgently as possible and view fresh orders. Does that statement not reflect the squeezing of the Navy's budget? That budget has been squeezed and squeezed for Trident, and we will be very lucky to have any more orders for these frigates in the next two or three years.
Mr. Heseltine: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to clarify what I meant when I referred to the ability of British Shipbuilders to influence the tendering procedures. Of course, the specifications are laid down by the Ministry of Defence. We are the customers. The actual decisions within British Shipbuilders about the rate of profit and rate of overhead recovery are taken by British Shipbuilders on behalf of the subsidiaries within its control. To that extent, there is a limit to the degree of competitiveness between the yards that would occur if those yards were within the private sector. I hope that that point clarifies the position.
The hon. Gentleman asked about service. I answered that question when I said that it takes between four and five years — nearer four years — for these ships to be constructed. If one takes the order date and adds that period of construction, one comes close to an answer to the question.
On the hon. Gentleman's last point, there will be more orders from the Ministry of Defence. We have substantial available cash resources to spend in part upon the orders for the Royal Navy. The Opposition's forecasts on this matter will prove as ill founded as their forecasts on everything else.
Sir David Price: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Does it arise from the statement?
Sir David Price: Yes, Mr. Speaker. In view of the totally unsatisfactory explanation by my right hon. Friend

27
the Secretary of State on why Vosper Thornycroft has been so harshly treated, I give notice that I shall seek the earliest opportunity to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Business of the House
3.53 pm
The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a short business statement.
Following discussions through the usual channels, I have agreed to table a motion to exempt the business on Wednesday on the inspector's report on the airport inquiries 1981–83 for a period of two hours. The motion relating to the Immigration Appeals (Procedure) Rules will now be taken on a subsequent occasion.
Mr. David Winnick: May I ask a question, Mr. Speaker?
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member may do so later if he catches my eye.
Mr. Peter Shore: As the Leader of the House has made one announcement to change the business during this week, will he take the occasion to tell the House when he intends to arrange for either a debate or a statement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer so that we have an opportunity to hear the latest chapter in the decline and fall of the pound sterling and the further failure of the Government's economic policy?
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry to stop the shadow Leader of the House, but this statement relates to the business on Wednesday and the inspector's report on airport inquiries. The right hon. Member will have to find another occasion—not on this statement—to raise that matter, please.
Mr. Shore: We are talking about the business of the House. I am inviting the Leader of the House to consider more widely whether he can make changes in the business to meet the urgency of the nation's problems.
Mr. Biffen: I beleve that the precedents are that I confine myself to the rather narrow point that I have raised. I take note of the important issue that concerns the right hon. Gentleman, and I shall convey his anxieties to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I say to the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) and the rest of the House that we must deal with the statement that we have before the House.
Dr. David Owen: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. With respect, when the business statement is made by the Leader of the House, he is questioned on this week's business. It is not for him to determine upon what he will be questioned, nor, with respect, Mr. Speaker, do I believe that there is a precedent for you — [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] — to confine the questions, provided that they relate to the business of the House.
Mr. Speaker: Order. If the right hon. Member looks up the precedents, he will find that he is not correct about that. If we do not keep in order in this place, we may prejudice subsequent debates. The statement was about a motion to exempt the business on Wednesday for two hours. It was not about business generally, which is announced on Thursdays.
Dr. Owen: The House is not managed for the convenience of the official Opposition or the Government. It is managed for the convenience of all hon. Members. The fact that we are not to have a statement from the Chancellor of the Exchequer today on the substantial increase in interest rates is open to serious question. It is open to the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) to question you, Mr. Speaker, as I intend to question the Leader of the House, as to why there will not be a debate on Wednesday. The Labour party may not wish to challenge the Government's economic policies, but we do. I believe that we are in order to do so, and I should like your ruling.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I wonder whether the right hon. Member is aware that his hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Wrigglesworth) has already given me notice that he intends to raise the matter under Standing Order No. 10. It would be wrong for the right hon. Member to seek to widen the statement into something different. The precedent is well established.
Dr. Owen: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am surprised that you think it is possible that my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Wrigglesworth) would raise the matter under Standing Order No. 10 without having discussed it with me.
I believe that the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) was in order in seeking to question the Leader of the House as to why there is not to be a debate this week on the Chancellor's statement. The Labour party may have given up using the rights and duties of the House, but I should like a ruling, Mr. Speaker, on whether you are saying that the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney was out of order and that I should be out of order in making a similar point, which is that instead of having a debate on Stansted, we should have a debate on the economy.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. One at a time. The right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) raises an important point, but he and the House know that I am bound by Standing Orders and precedent. I draw his attention and that of the House to page 346 of "Erskine May", where it says, in relation to supplementary business statements,
"On other days only business questions relating to the business of the day, or to any change in the business for the week already announced, are permitted."
That is why I ruled as I did.
Mr. Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that the right hon. Member for Plymouth,
30
Devonport (Dr. Owen) should try to raise a quarrel with you when you are clearly acting with the authority of the House.
On future occasions, would you consider the possibility, when the Leader of the House announces a change of business at a time when there is great economic news, such as the change in interests rates, of asking him to arrange for a statement to be made in the House? There is a great deal of anxiety about the effect on jobs and so on, and we would therefore be glad of an opportunity to ask the Leader of the House for a statement to be made as soon as possible on the increase in the interest rate to 14 per cent.
Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think that I may be able to be of some assistance to you. As you quite rightly said, when there is a business statement on a narrow item, it is important that the leader of the Social Democratic party, if he wishes to get in on another matter—
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Skinner: I am coming to the point. It should be open to the right hon. Gentleman to use a little ingenuity. If he had said that perhaps it would have been better for the House to devote an extra two hours to the state of the economy and the fall on the stock exchange instead of to a debate on Stansted, you would have ruled him in order, he would have complied with "Erskine May", and he would have been a little wiser. However, when someone is a one-man band, power sometimes goes to the head.
Dr. Owen rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I always get a little apprehensive when the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) says that he is being helpful to me. However, in this case, that is correct.
Dr. Owen: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In the light of what you read out from "Erskine May", that can hardly be a ruling as to precedent. Will you consider the matter in relation to what has happened in the past?
Mr. Speaker: I shall certainly do that.
Mr. John Wilkinson rose—
Mr. Speaker: Is this another point of order?
Mr. Wilkinson: No, Mr. Speaker, it is a question on the statement of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.
I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. Is the matter to be debated on Wednesday for the extra time to be considered a party matter, or, as far as the Government are concerned, is it not?
Mr. Biffen: Whipping is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary.

Coal Industry Dispute
4.3 pm
Mr. Stanley Orme: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 10, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the Government's involvement in the mining industry dispute."
The Government's actions during the past week have left the country in no doubt that they are trying to impede the resumption of negotiations. It is in terms of that specific matter that the House should be able to debate the mining dispute once again.
There cannot be a single Member in any part of the House who does not regard the matter as important. Each week that the Government prolong the dispute they are spending an estimated £80 million in their attempt to break the strike and the National Union of Mineworkers. Today there has been another increase in interest rates, which is not unconnected with the dispute. Meanwhile, miners and their families are suffering increasing hardship in their struggle to maintain their jobs and ensure a future for their communities. The matter is increasingly urgent as a result of the Government's intervention this week. Recently both the chairman of the National Coal Board and Mr. Michael Eaton stated that they believed that the only way to resolve this dispute was through a negotiated settlement. Even more recently, the leadership of the NUM has called for a resumption of negotiations without preconditions.
Despite the statements of both sides in the dispute, the Government have blatantly interfered to prevent negotiations. Last week the press briefing from the Prime Minister's Office was fully reported in the national press, and had the effect of scotching any immediate resumption of negotiations. On Saturday, Mr. David Hart, a close adviser of the Prime Minister's wrote in The Times:
"Any true negotiation now would represent defeat for the coal board … the time for negotiated settlement is past … they must be defeated".
The House must hear from the Secretary of State on this matter. The Secretary of State should make it plain to the House what the attitude of the Government is and not leave hon. Members and the country to guess from conflicting press reports. The House should have the opportunity to discuss this long and serious dispute and the implications of the Government's actions.
Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 10, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,

"the Government's involvement in the mining industry dispute."
I have listened with great care to what has been said by the right hon. Member. As he knows, we had a long discussion on this matter at Question Time today. I have to take account of the fact that it is hoped that negotiations are to begin tomorrow.
As the right hon. Gentleman knows, my sole responsibility in exercising my discretion in considering applications under Standing Order No. 10 is to decide whether they should have priority over the business already set down for this evening or tomorrow. I regret that I cannot find that the matter that he has raised meets those criteria, and I cannot therefore submit his application to the House.
Mr. Orme: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understand the views that you have expressed, and I am not challenging them. However, I speak as someone who has made exhaustive efforts to promote negotiations throughout the dispute. As such, I say that it is not negotiations that are to start tomorrow, but talks about talks. The situation is one of great significance both to the Labour Opposition and to myself. If the talks were to fail, or if the negotiations did not start, I must advise you on behalf of the Opposition, that I will immediately raise the matter in the House again.
Mr. Speaker: I fully understand, and fully accept, the right hon. Gentleman's point.
Mr. A. J. Beith: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In referring to the same matter on 24 January, you pointed out:
"I am bound to have regard to other opportunities in the House to raise these matters." — [Official Report, 24 January 1985; Vol. 71, c. 1145]
I hope, Mr. Speaker, that you will bear in mind the great difference between discussing a matter for three hours, as under Standing Order No. 10, and having a full day in which to discuss it, which gives wider opportunities, especially to Back Benchers, to take part. If the matter were the subject for an Opposition day, it would be open to us to discuss it for a full day.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The choice of subject for Opposition days is not a matter for me.
Mr. Dick Douglas: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is with some trepidation and apprehension that I raise this matter with you. I am aware of the difficulties that you must have in trying to arrive at a conclusion, but many of us who are actively involved in the dispute are aware that we have not had an opportunity to discuss it on the Floor of the House, no matter how responsibility for that is apportioned. My fear and, I believe, that of many other Opposition Members is that if there are pressures on the negotiations, the Government have opportunities, through their offices and links with the NCB, to influence, for good or ill, the course of the deliberations. The House, however, has no opportunity to ventilate the feelings of the whole nation about the dispute. I trust that you will keep that in mind in any further representations that are made to you.
Mr. Speaker: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I keep that matter very much in mind. I think that the House should have an opportunity, at the appropriate moment, to discuss this issue.
Mr. Dave Nellist rose—
Mr. Peter Bruinvels: It is nice of the hon. Gentleman to look in—he has missed his question.
Mr. Nellist: I spend more time here than you do, sunshine.
Mr. Speaker: Order. My name is not sunshine.
Mr. Nellist: It seems to be one of those days.
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. In your ruling a few minutes ago, Mr. Speaker, you explained that the only criterion by which you are allowed to judge an application under Standing Order No. 10 is whether it should take precedence over the business set down for today or tomorrow. Would you expand on that explanation slightly, because the business that is set down for today

33
—the Education (Corporal Punishment) Bill — has already been delayed from last week. On the day on which the Bill was supposed to be debated last week, you turned down an application under Standing Order No. 10 for a debate on the miners' strike. If the Bill was not sufficiently important to be discussed last week, could it not be postponed again so that a crucially important debate on the miners' strike could take place today?
Mr. Speaker: I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to Standing Order No. 10, which sets out my discretion fully.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a different point of order, of which I gave you notice—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall take that point of order later. It is a different issue. Let us deal with all this first.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Is this another attempt to be helpful?
Mr. Skinner: I try to do that all the time, Mr. Speaker. In regard to the criteria by which you make a decision, you referred to the fact that there might be negotiations and gave the impression that if the House debated the matter, that could necessarily hamper the negotiations. There is a bit of a problem there in that, although the House might keep its collective mouth shut, the Government continue to open theirs. The Government feed the media in all sorts of ways and the idea of having a debate is to provide some balance. That is important and I hope that, when an application under Standing Order No. 10 is made again, you will bear that in mind.
Mr. Speaker: I most certainly will.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Although I do not wish to challenge your ruling on the application under Standing Order No. 10, are you aware that the mining dispute has now gone on for more than half of the life of this Parliament, that, so far, only one application under Standing Order No. 10 relating to it has been granted, that more than 23 have been made, that many people outside the House find it unbelievable that the mining dispute should be discussed everywhere else and affect everyone's life in some way and cause great hardship to some, although less to others, yet the House still does not give time to debate the matter? I trust that you will look favourably on a further application under Standing Order No. 10.
Mr. Speaker: I repeat what I said last Thursday. I am not responsible for the organisation of business in the House. That is done through the usual channels and with all the parties concerned. The Opposition have at their disposal an Opposition day, broadly once a week. It so happens that this week there is not an Opposition day, and I shall certainly have to take that into account if applications are made in future.

Secretary of State for Transport
4.14 pm
Mr. Peter Snape: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 10, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the failure of the Secretary of State for Transport to respond to a court decision of 11 January 1985 that he had acted irrationally, improperly and unlawfully in compelling the Greater London council to pay a sum of approximately £50 million in excess of the sum properly required to finance London Regional Transport."
The matter is specific because it relates to a court judgment, as I have outlined, and to the judge's comments about the conduct of the Secretary of State and his subsequent inaction.
It is important, because Ministers are surely not above the law, and there are rumours that the Government are considering a change of the law and, in so doing, introducing retrospective legislation to make lawful what the judge called unlawful. The Government constantly demand respect for the rule of law of others and regularly campaign, without much evidence, as the law and order party.
The matter is urgent because as long ago as 14 January the Secretary of State claimed, while refusing to answer questions on this matter, that my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks):
"will know that we have appealed against the judgment, and therefore it is sub judice." — [Official Report, 14 January 1985; Vol. 71, c. 2.]
I am informed that, despite the Secretary of State's comments in the House on that day at column 2, as I have quoted, and at column 11 and column 13, to the effect that the Government intended to appeal and that he would therefore not answer questions on this matter, no such appeal has so far been received by the court. In view of the rumours that the Government are to seek a change in the law in attempt to justify the Secretary of State's disgraceful conduct, might I press you to approve this application?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 10, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the failure of the Secretary of State for Transport to respond to a court decision of 11 January 1985 that he had acted irrationally, improperly and unlawfully in compelling the Greater London council to pay a sum of approximately £50 million in excess of the sum properly required to finance London Regional Transport."
I have listened with great care to what the hon. Member has said, but I regret that I do not consider the matter that he has raised is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 10, and I cannot therefore submit his application to the House.

Interest rates
4.17 pm
Mr. Ian Wrigglesworth: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 10, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the rise in interest rates which has taken place today."
This is a specific matter because it concerns a 2 per cent. increase in the base rate, which will have a profound impact on the economy and the Government's policy.
The matter is important because the rise will substantially increase costs to industry—they have risen by over £1 billion since the beginning of the year—and almost inevitably lead to substantial increases in mortgage interest rates for householders and others who borrow money. The rise will undermine the foundations of the Government's economic policy.
The House should give urgent consideration to the matter, not least because there will not be another opportunity to consider it in the near future. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that when a smaller increase in interest rates took place only a short while ago you allowed a private notice question and the Chancellor of the Exchequer made a statement to the House. We have had no statement today and no opportunity to discuss the issue.
I hope, Mr. Speaker that you will accept my application to provide the House with the opportunity to have a short debate on the Government's economic strategy for the future, what reserves are being used to bolster the pound, what the Government's exchange rate policy is and what will happen to interest rates in the future. I hope that you will provide the House with an early opportunity to discuss the matter.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 10, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the rise in interest rates which has taken place today."
I have not today received any application for a private notice question, possibly because the news came after midday. I have listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman has said, but I regret that I do not consider that the matter he has raised is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 10, and I cannot therefore submit his application to the House.

Sub Judice Rule
4.20 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to raise a matter about which I gave notice to your office shortly after 10 o'clock this morning. I hope that you will rule on it, possibly tomorrow, when you have had time to reflect on the matter. It is the delicate and difficult matter of the sub judice rule.
In answer to a question, the Secretary of State for Defence said that a report in The Times was without truth. I am not concerned with the report, but simply with a quotation from a Member of Parliament, for such is Admiral Hill-Norton. In the paper of record he is reported as saying:
"One cannot help feeling that, like the Clive Ponting case, they are doing it to suppress something which may be damaging to the reputation of Government Ministers and officials. The whole thing stinks."
The House will realise that I could not personally take exception to that comment. Therefore, I feel easier about raising the matter as a general issue of principle. Someone somewhere will have to sort out what is sub judice and what is not. The rules are extremely elastic.
Last week, many points were raised with you. I spent the morning at the Old Bailey and can only report that hardened court reporters had never before seen anything quite like that comment from a Member of Parliament. Will you, Mr. Speaker, reflect on the issues raised, and possibly rule tomorrow?
Mr. Speaker: I shall certainly do that.

Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.
Mr. Speaker: With the leave of the House, I shall put together the Questions on the 11 motions relating to statutory instruments.
Ordered,
That the draft Redundancy Payments (Variation of Rebates) Order 1985 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the draft Specialised Agencies of the United Nations (Immunities and Privileges) (Amendment) Order 1985 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the draft International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (Legal Capacities) Order 1985 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the draft Water Undertakings (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1985 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the draft British Waterways Board (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1985 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the draft Glasgow Underground (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1985 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the draft British Alcan Aluminium Limited and Lochaber Power Company (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1985 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the draft Scottish Electricity Boards (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1985 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the draft British Gas Corporation (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1985 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the draft British Railways Board (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1985 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the draft British Telecommunications plc (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1985 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Neubert.].

Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.

  STANDING COMMITTEES ON EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
  Ordered,
  That European Community Documents Nos. 9182/84, 11388/84 and 4096/85 (replacing 9469/84) concerning wine be referred to a Standing Committee on European Community Documents.—[Mr. Neubert.].

Orders of the Day

  Education (Corporal Punishment) Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.
  4.22 pm
  The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Sir Keith Joseph): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The objective of the Bill is to secure compliance with the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in February 1982. Under article 2 of the first protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights, states are obliged to respect the philosophical convictions of their citizens. The court's judgment means that a parental conviction against corporal punishment in schools comes within the terms of that article.
  The United Kingdom Government ratified the convention in March 1951 and undertook to abide by the decision of the court in any case to which they were a party. There is no provision for appeal, and the court's judgment in February 1982 is therefore binding.
  The question for the Government, therefore, was to decide on the means of compliance. One way of complying would be to legislate to abolish corporal punishment in state schools. That is not required by the judgment, which was concerned with respect for a philosophical conviction, and the Government reject that option. The Government are opposed in principle to forcing abolition.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has encouraged gradual elimination of corporal punishment on a voluntary basis. For many years that has been the policy in Scotland, where the circumstances are different from those in the rest of the United Kingdom, and where the process of voluntary elimination has largely been completed. The Government are at one in rejecting enforced abolition.
  Outside Scotland, there is no prospect of a consensus on abolition. Many parents and teachers see a place for corporal punishment in schools; for example, last year a sample poll in England and Wales showed more than half of the teachers interviewed to be in favour of retention, compared with more than a third in favour of abolition. Therefore, a state ban on corporal punishment is not called for by the European Court's judgment. The Government are not prepared to ride roughshod over the views of the millions of parents and teachers in this country who see a place for corporal punishment.
  It is all very well for the Opposition to adopt a centralist posture and say that they will ignore the views of millions of teachers and parents who believe that they should have a voice in the decision whether corporal punishment in any school should be ruled out of order. Once again the Opposition have espoused a policy of imposing their views on the country. We are going as far as we can to consult parents and teachers by the means described in the Bill.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Since the Secretary of State is so keen to give powers to parents,

  39

  will he explain how the Bill deals with the position in which one parent believes in corporal punishment and the other does not?
  Sir Keith Joseph: In compliance with the judgment of the court, we must give priority to the view of the parent who has a philosophical conviction, or who expresses a wish consistent with a philosophical conviction against corporal punishment.
  The second option for the Government was to adopt what might be called a dual system. The Government therefore considered the possibility of a dual system of schools, some where corporal punishment was used, and others where it was not. In theory, such a dual system would allow parents to choose between the two types of school.
  However, there would be enormous practical difficulties and it could be hugely expensive. The practical difficulties would be greatest in rural areas, where choice is limited by the sparsity of population. In all areas, however, there would be administrative complications for the allocation of pupils to schools. It would be expensive because of the need to provide additional schools to maintain existing patterns of choice between different types of school. Altogether it would be a wasteful use of resources. Since no parent must be penalised for seeking respect for his or her philosophical conviction, the existing provision of schools would virtually have to be doubled. Therefore, the Government rejected a dual system option.
  The remaining option is that embodied in the Bill.
  Mr. Michael Latham: My right hon. Friend spoke of the remaining option. Will he explain why he did not consider a fourth option, which is to do absolutely nothing?
  Sir Keith Joseph: That is an attractive option, but for the one overriding factor that the country does not break its treaty obligations. The country subscribed to the rule of court in 1951. In 1966, under a Labour Government, the country widened its undertaking to comply from those cases where the applicant was another state to those where the applicant was an individual. Since 1966, the Government have confirmed their compliance with the treaty every five years, and the latest date of such confirmation was 1981. I am sure that many hon. Members find aspects of the Bill distasteful, but most hon. Members will agree that it would be even more distasteful for the country to fail to comply with the judgment of the court and with the treaty to which the country has subscribed.
  Mr. Robert Maclennan: Although I welcome the Government's commitment to trying to enforce the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, does the Secretary of State agree that there is a wider obligation upon the Government to respect the convention which, under article 3, provides that inhuman and degrading treatment shall not be administered? Does he accept that article 3 was considered in the court's judgment which the Bill seeks to enforce and that, although the circumstances were held not to require the invocation of article 3, it remains the case that if corporal punishment is inflicted in schools, on the facts of some cases, the British Government may once again be hauled
  40
  before an international court? Is it not extremely undesirable that Britain should once again face the possibility of a judgment against the Government because the Secretary of State has not sought to abolish corporal punishment?
  Sir Keith Joseph: I understand that some cases under article 3 will come before the court. The Government will defend their position. It is not obvious to the Government that corporal punishment, especially when one considers the breadth of definition of that phrase, represents degrading or inhuman treatment. The hon. Gentleman should not make judgments before the court does.
  Mr. Alan Howarth: My right hon. Friend said that some aspects of the Bill might be distasteful. Does he find distasteful the fact that, in consequence of the measure, the principle of in loco parentis, and with it the authority of teachers, head teachers and governors of schools may be seriously undermined?
  Sir Keith Joseph: If that were true, I would respect my hon. Friend's concern, but I am advised that the in loco parentis position of the teacher is not undermined. It is slightly reduced in connection with this Bill only, but in all other aspects of responsibility in school it remains undiminished.
  The Government have adopted the only other course available—an exemptions scheme. It may not be ideal, but it is better than abolition or a dual system. In short, it is the least objectionable solution. An exemptions scheme allows parents whose children would otherwise be liable to corporal punishment in school to exempt them from such punishment. Where schools have abandoned all forms of corporal punishment, or to the extent that a school has abandoned it — I am thinking of a school with an infant class as well as junior classes—the Bill will not affect them, and there will be no obligation to consult parents. Where schools use corporal punishment, in any of its forms — I must emphasise that a slap would constitute corporal punishment—the Bill gives parents a choice. They can leave the matter to the school, in which case the child will be liable to corporal punishment, or they can opt the child out of corporal punishment.
  Mr. Eric Forth: Will my right hon. Friend make it crystal clear to me and to the House whether this is an opting-in or opting-out system? My facility to read legislative documents is not as strong as it could be, but the first part of clause 2 refers to
  "maintaining registers showing those pupils who are not to be exempt from corporal punishment",
  which suggests to me that the onus is on parents to opt in if they wish their children to be subject to corporal punishment.
  Sir Keith Joseph: The Bill is an opting-out measure. The children whose parents do not opt them out will remain on the register; it is the children on the register who will remain liable to corporal punishment. I was about to explain that with my next sentence.
  Under the system to be introduced by regulations, parents who do not reply to an approach from the school will be deemed to have consented to the use of corporal punishment on their children. In effect, it is an opting-out scheme. Unless parents take the trouble to return a form to the school saying that they opt their child out, a teacher

  41
  in any court action will have the defence of acting in loco parentis. The initiative of asking the question, "Do you or do you not agree to corporal punishment for your child?" lies with the school. The responsibility for saying no lies with the parents.
  Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Is that not made clear in clause 2(4)?
  Sir Keith Joseph: I had hoped that it was abundantly clear from the entire Bill, but I am glad to have that confirmation from my hon. Friend.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does the Secretary of State accept that it is clear from the Bill that schools will have some administrative problems if they must take the responsibility of ensuring that a reply from a parent is kept safely? Does he accept that many schools would prefer a system in which the opposite was true, so that they had proof of the willingness of parents that their children should be liable to corporal punishment?
  Sir Keith Joseph: I imagine that there are two points of view about this, and no doubt it can be argued in Committee. However, especially after the helpful results of the consultation that we have carried out in recent months, we believe this option to be the most practical.
  If the school does not receive an answer from a parent, I imagine that it will be required by regulations to remind the parent that an answer is awaited. If, after a few weeks —or the period that is laid down in the regulations—no answer has been received, that parent will be assumed to have forgone the opportunity to opt out his child or children, and his or their names will be entered on the register.
  As the court requires us to respect the philosophical conviction of a parent or parents, it is surely not too much to hope that a parent with such philosophical convictions will answer a question from the school and return a form.
  Mr. Peter Bruinvels: The Bill has given encouragement to many parents with children in schools where corporal punishment has not been available until now. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the Bill will allow parents to opt in to corporal punishment in schools where there is at present no corporal punishment? If not, why not?
  Sir Keith Joseph: I cannot answer my hon. Friend as he would wish. Where a school has already stopped using corporal punishment in any of its forms, it will not be required by the Bill to approach parents for their permission. Of course, it is open to a school to reconsider, but it will not automatically be open to parents to act under the Bill to persuade a school to change its view. If parents, singly or in a group, wish to ask a school to reconsider its position, they will be as free in the future as they are now, and have been, to try so to persuade the school.
  Mr. John Heddle (Mid-Staffordshire): Could my right hon. Friend help those Conservative Members who are genuinely concerned about how to cast their votes later tonight on what appears, at the very least, to be a muddled Bill? Has my right hon. Friend received the suggestion from teachers' organisations that if there are to be two tiers of punishment—for those children whose parents are prepared to allow corporal punishment to be administered to them there will be three of the best, whereas for the
  42
  others there will be 100 lines or three hours of detention — this will create the most enormous administrative problems?
  Sir Keith Joseph: Yes, such views have reached my ears. It has been widely said, both in the House and among the teachers, that such difficulties might arise. In a few moments I propose to deal with them.
  Mr. Tony Marlow: Is it not becoming apparent that if a child wants to carry out a misdemeanour he should do it with a child who is on the register because then he will not be beaten, whereas if he misbehaves with a child who is on the register he will be beaten? Is it not obvious that the legislation is absurd? Is this not the penalty that we are paying for allowing foreign institutions to decide what laws we in this country should have?
  Sir Keith Joseph: My hon. Friend will find much support for that point of view. However, the fact is that the Government of this country subscribe to the treaty. Therefore, we have an obligation. The method that we have adopted in the Bill has more regard for the wishes of parents than would a Government ban on corporal punishment. If a school wishes to use corporal punishment on any pupil, it has to go to that pupil's parents to seek their views. The school is obliged to accede to the parent's wishes if the parent says no. In the most direct way possible, therefore, an exemption scheme meets the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights. Without children moving from one school, normally the one the parent has chosen, to another, parents are able to secure respect for their philosophical convictions against corporal punishment.
  Mr. Martin Flannery: Does this apply to public schools, or are public schools exempt from human rights? Is the parent of a child who is at a public school—this is, in fact, a private school, but it is a curious British habit to call private schools public schools—able to prevent his offspring receiving corporal punishment? May I therefore pose to the Minister the problem of the assisted places scheme?
  Sir Keith Joseph: I wonder whether the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) will permit me to deal with that precise point in a few moments.
  Mr. Flannery: I do not want to create difficulties for the Minister, but can he explain what will happen to such a child?
  Sir Keith Joseph: The hon. Member will have his chance, if he will allow me to reach that part of my speech.
  The exemptions approach has been criticised — I come now to the anxiety expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Heddle)—
  Mr. Fred Silvester: My right hon. Friend said that the Bill provides for the rights laid down by the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights at Strasbourg. Will he make it perfectly clear to me and to the House whether, if left to his own good judgment, he would have introduced a Bill of this kind? Does he find that, as presented to the House, the Bill is in the best interests of the education of the children of this country?
  Sir Keith Joseph: I shall go only so far as to say that if my right hon. Friends in the Government had offered me the chance to present a Bill on education, this is not the subject upon which we should be legislating.
  An exemptions approach has been criticised as unfair. It would allow corporal punishment to be used on one child and not on another, even if both had committed the same offence. This is a very plausible argument, and I can see that it contains a good deal of force, but even within the same school individual circumstances already sometimes cause one child, perhaps because of problems at home, or because of an emotional crisis, or for some other reason, not to be subject to corporal punishment.
  In the case of two schools virtually adjacent to one another and serving the same catchment area, one may have abolished corporal punishment, while the other has not. Moreover, in the same school, in particular where there is a mixed age range, although infants are not subject to corporal punishment they are occasionally slapped on the leg or the hand. In many schools, girls are exempt from many forms of corporal punishment, while boys are not. To argue that an exemptions scheme makes for unfairness between children who have misbehaved in the same way is to assume that corporal punishment is the only sort of punishment.
  I hope that all hon. Members will accept that corporal punishment is used only for the most severe offences. Nor is it the only punishment. There are all sorts of punishments, including the withdrawal of rewards and privileges. This is probably one of the most widely used forms of punishment. Therefore, I do not accept that unfairness is necessarily a compelling argument.
  If two children in a school have committed the same offence and one is subject to corporal punishment and the other is not, and corporal punishment is applied to the child who is not exempt, I do not accept that the child who is exempt will not be jealous of the child who is subject to corporal punishment. In certain circumstances, it could be that a child would rather have a short, sharp punishment rather than the longer drawn out punishment that might replace it. Nevertheless, I freely grant to my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Silvester) that there may well be a risk of unfairness between children, one of whom is exempt and one of whom is not.
  Exempted pupils would not go unpunished. There is a range of other sanctions that teachers could use. Where pupils are caught in the same act of misbehaviour and some are exempted and some are not, teachers can decide to offer to those who are liable to corporal punishment the choice of an alternative. This choice of punishment is sometimes given now. What matters is that pupils should know that they will not go unpunished. The withdrawal of rewards and privileges can be, and perhaps is, the best alternative. Pupils are made to realise that they cannot misbehave with impunity. An exemptions scheme can therefore be made to work.
  Mr. Edward Leigh: If the philosophical argument in favour of the Bill, as opposed to the pragmatic argument, is that parents have the right of ultimate control to remove their children from activities which they dislike, whether it be religious education under the Education Act 1944 or caning under this Bill, why should we stop at that? Why should parents
  44
  not have the right to withdraw their children from biased political education, such as peace studies? Are we not in danger of imposing double standards?
  Sir Keith Joseph: It is open to any parent or child to complain if education is being distorted into indoctrination.
  An exemptions scheme can be made to work. Practical questions arise, however, about obtaining and recording the views of parents. That is why a consultative document was issued in 1983. The Bill has benefited from that exercise, in particular because the response has shown the advantage of seeking the views of all parents whose children are liable to corporal punishment. Under the scheme outlined in the Bill, the initiative lies with the school rather than with the parents. This, together with the fact that the school will keep a list of those who are liable to corporal punishment, from which exempted children will have been excluded by their parents, reduces to a minimum the risk of errors and misunderstandings.
  I come now to the main features of the Bill. The first three clauses relate to England and Wales. Clause 1 concerns the defence available to a teacher or other member of staff in civil or criminal proceedings for battery. Where a teacher has administered moderate and reasonable corporal punishment, he can at present advance the defence that he was acting in loco parentis.
  The Bill provides that that defence cannot be advanced in civil proceedings in the case of pupils who have been exempted from corporal punishment. The definition of corporal punishment is necessarily wide. It extends beyond the use of the cane or tawse, to other forms of bodily chastisement. Most acts which constitute battery would be disallowed in the case of an exempted pupil.
  However, there must be safeguards for staff who are obliged to intervene physically for the purpose of restraining pupils. Provided that averting immediate danger to a person or property is one of the reasons for the action, the in loco parentis defence will still be available. There is no question of destroying the in loco parentis concept. For most practical purposes, apart from that issue of corporal punishment, it stays.
  Pupils would be exempt from corporal punishment unless their names appeared on a register. The requirement to keep a register will apply to all maintained schools and to non-maintained special schools in which corporal punishment is used. I repeat that where a school has given up the use of corporal punishment in all its forms, the Bill does not affect it.
  The requirement to comply with the Bill will also extend to pupils whose fees are paid wholly or in part directly out of public funds. That will affect local authority placements and pupils benefiting under the assisted places scheme or the music and ballet schemes. The legislation will not apply to other pupils in independent schools.
  Finally, I should stress that the clause applies to corporal punishment used by or on the authority of a member of staff, and therefore extends to others besides teachers.
  Mr. Marlow: I am sorry to intervene a second time, but would a public school, or a private school as the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) called it, be able to say that, as a condition of allowing a child to come under the assisted places scheme, it would require the parents to put their child on the register? If not, does my right hon. Friend expect to lose several assisted places?
  Sir Keith Joseph: I should like to consider that question. My impression is that that would not be consistent with the assisted places scheme. Either my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will answer that question whether he replies to the debate if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, or I shall ensure that a letter goes to my hon. Friend.
  Mr. Robert Key: My right hon. Friend said that schools in receipt of public money would be liable to the scheme. Does that include children of military and diplomatic officers?
  Sir Keith Joseph: I must give my hon. Friend the same answer. I should like to make sure of the answer to that and then write to him. The Bill applies to those children placed by local authorities in independent schools.
  Clause 2 provides for the registers maintained by schools using corporal punishment to record the names of those pupils who are liable to the sanction on the basis of consent by their parents. The clause is the framework around which regulations will be prepared. We envisage regulations which will allow a school to assume consent if the parent did not reply to the school within a specified period of, say, six weeks. We also envisage that parents could change their minds. "Parent" would be interpreted broadly. A school's initial responsibility to seek the views of parents would be discharged by sending a form to the pupil's home address.
  A school or local education authority may change its policy on corporal punishment, introducing it in schools where it was not previously used, or abandoning it in others. In that case, schools would have to set up registers or abandon them as the case may be.
  Mr. Clement Freud: Would there be some sort of gestation period, or would it be possible for a parent to phone up when he finds that his or her child will be caned and countermand that instruction?
  Sir Keith Joseph: No, the thought is that regulations will provide for a few days between the decision and the effectiveness of that decision so that the teacher concerned can have no doubt about the position. Time is provided for a name to be put on or taken off the register without any misunderstanding.
  Mr. Patrick Cormack: Does my right hon. Friend, with his long parliamentary experience, remember any piece of legislation more bizarre than this? Has he ever spoken to anything with less conviction? Would he not be rather relieved if Parliament discharged him of his responsibilities this evening?
  Sir Keith Joseph: I think that the answers to my hon. Friend's questions are yes, no, no, but I should like to Make sure.
  The main purpose of clause 3 is to define responsibility for the maintenance of registers. In a maintained school, the responsible body would be the governors; in a non-maintained special school and for pupils affected in an independent school, the proprietor; for nursery schools maintained by an LEA, and for pupils educated otherwise than at school, the LEA would be the responsible body.
  Clause 4 applies to Scotland. While its provisions are basically similar to those contained in clauses 1, 2 and 3, it also takes into account certain aspects particular to the Scottish position. Such aspects include, in the case of
  46
  young persons—those aged 16 or 17 years—that it will be the young person himself whose views are sought, not those of his parents. That mirrors the position accorded young persons in other aspects of Scottish education legislation; for example, rights relating to choice of school.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett rose—
  Sir Keith Joseph: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not cross-examine me on Scotland.
  Mr. Bennett: I want to ask about a much more general philosophical point. Why should pupils over 16 be consulted in Scotland, but not in England and Wales? The European Court was concerned with the philosophical views of parents. If we take into account the philosophical views of 16-year-olds in Scotland, surely we should do the same in England and Wales?
  Sir Keith Joseph: That is not what the court requires us to comply with.
  Clause 4 reflects the long-standing policy of Scotland to which I have already referred. Those authorities which have already eliminated corporal punishment from their schools need not give fresh consideration to the issue, but can rest on their past decisions.
  Clause 5 anticipates arrangements for the extension of provisions corresponding to those in clauses 1, 2 and 3 to Northern Ireland. Clauses 6 and 7 are of a general nature and, inter alia, provide for different clauses to be brought into force at different times. The schedule describes aspects of the Bill which are to be covered by regulations.
  The administrative cost of an exemptions scheme would be slight, confined largely to postal and other costs incidental to keeping registers. As to extra expenditure arising from alternatives to corporal punishment, I reject the notion that there must be expensive alternatives. Some period of adjustment for schools which decide not to use corporal punishment will be necessary, but in the past others have made that adjustment, either from their own choice or as a result of local education authority policy. There is no need to expand teaching forces.
  Sir Kenneth Lewis: I notice that there is nothing in the Bill about savings in the cost of buying canes.
  Sir Keith Joseph: I must bear that argument in mind if anyone claims that more expense would be involved.
  I repeat that action was necessary to secure compliance with a ruling which has the status of a treaty obligation. I accept that any method of compliance is bound to be untidy. I do not accept that the Bill is a muddle. The Bill is consistent with upholding good discipline in schools, for which many parents and teachers regard the availability of corporal punishment as an important requirement, because, as the House will understand, there are alternatives to corporal punishment.
  The Government have sought to produce a measure which keeps the additional administrative burden to a minimum. In England and Wales the reaction of many schools may be to choose abolition. If so, it will be their choice. The essential concern of the Government is to maintain the rights of the school and to consult the parents to comply with the court ruling in the important matter of discipline. I ask the House to give the Bill a Second Reading.
  5 pm
  Mr. Giles Radice: I beg to move, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  "That this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Bill because it does not abolish corporal punishment, leads to unfairness between pupils, creates a bureaucratic nightmare, and fails to establish the atmosphere of co-operation in which good discipline can be maintained and educational standards raised."
  This is a totally unworkable Bill. As everyone knows, it is an uneasy compromise between the view held by many Conservative hon. Members that corporal punishment is good, and the binding decision of the European Court of Human Rights which, in the Campbell and Cosans case, upheld, under article 2, the rights of parents who oppose corporal punishment.
  Conservative Members of Parliament, among them the Secretary of State, believe that it is right, even in the 1980s when corporal punishment is banned in all other European countries, that schools should be able to use the sanction of what outside the classroom is defined as battery—in other words, a criminal offence. The Secretary of State has tried desperately but unavailingly to square the circle between his party's prejudices and the decision of the European Court of Human Rights.
  Right hon. and hon. Members will recollect that the Secretary of State produced a four-page consultative document 17 months after the court's decision. That proposed a system of opt-out, which was exactly the same as that contained in the Bill, for the children of parents who opposed corporal punishment. However, in the consultative exercise which followed, the opt-out compromise was roundly condemned by all authoritative organisations, and I think that the Secretary of State should have told the House that when he was extolling the virtues of his Bill.
  I remind the right hon. Gentleman of what the organisations said to him. The Association of Metropolitan Authorities called the proposals "unworkable". The Association of County Councils said:
  "a system which allowed different sanctions for the same misdemeanour … would be difficult to justify."
  The Campaign for State Education said that the European Court had made the use of corporal punishment
  "inequitable, illogical and above all impracticable."
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: These criticisms of the Bill may be justified, but why should not school governors make the ultimate decision, as the Bill provides?
  Mr. Radice: I shall come to that. I want to make my speech in my own way.
  The National Union of Teachers said that the Government's policy was "ill-conceived".
  The Assistant Masters and Mistresses Association had the gravest reservations about the wisdom of creating two disciplinary systems.
  Perhaps the most significant comment came from the National Association of Head Teachers. Right hon. and hon. Members will be aware that the consultative document stressed the central role played by heads in maintaining discipline. The head teachers warned the Government of the conflict between the decision not to abolish and the decision to retain a sanction which would be implemented on an unsatisfactory basis. Only last week the same association went so far as to urge the Government
  48
  to fix a date for phasing out beating instead of introducing a measure that would bring about abolition by the back door.
  On 26 October the Secretary of State told the House:
  "Over 100 organisations and individuals responded, and it is clear that there is concern about an exemptions system." — [Official Report, 26 October 1984; Vol. 65 c. 735.]
  If the Secretary of State is honest—and I know that he tries to be — I think that he will admit that the organisations which support him can be counted on the fingers of one hand.
  The right hon. Gentleman has himself publicly accepted, as he told the House on 8 November, that an opt-out system would have "untidy consequences." Today he went even further in airing his misgivings about the Bill. Yet, despite the almost universal condemnation, despite all the warnings about unworkability and despite his own awareness of the inadequacy of the Bill, the Secretary of State has chosen to proceed with this absurd piece of legislation.
  Any objective observer must conclude that the Bill's main effect is to create two patterns of discipline in the classroom—one for those pupils whose parents do not consent to corporal punishment, and the other for those pupils whose parents either support corporal punishment or have failed to reply to the school governors in writing that they are against corporal punishment.
  Mr. Forth: The hon. Gentleman may wish to make some play with the term "philosophical convictions," because that is the basis of the court's judgment. However, if a parent has philosophical convictions, it is unlikely that he will fail to respond to an approach to him by the school about a subject which is as important as this one. Is not that so?
  Mr. Radice: It may be that the hon. Gentleman is a better correspondent than I am, but I do not always reply to every letter sent to me. I do my best, but occasionally matters go wrong. The problem is that if a parent does not reply, the assumption is that he or she is in favour of corporal punishment. That is the difficulty. [Interruption.] In any event, as my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) points out, he may not receive the letter.
  Mr. J. F. Pawsey: Did not my right hon. Friend say that not only would parents receive a letter asking whether they were prepared to have their children punished corporally but, if they did not reply, that they would also receive a reminder? They would have to neglect two specific letters. On such an important matter as this, that would be extremely unlikely.
  Mr. Radice: I hope that most parents would reply, but some might not. But that is not my main argument against the Bill.
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: It is not a very good one, either.
  Mr. Radice: It is not a bad one. But I am coming to the "alpha" part.
  Mr. Hogg: Could do better.
  Mr. Cormack: Not very good for a Wykehamist.
  Mr. Radice: Let me paint a scenario for right hon. and hon. Members. Let us say that there are two pupils who misbehave. For the sake of argument, I shall call them Keith and Giles. Keith's parents do not mind him being

  49
  beaten, but Giles's parents happen to mind. They have a conviction against it. [Laughter.] Right hon. and hon. Members may laugh, but this is what will happen, and it will be chaotic. The teacher may remember the wishes of the parents of the two unruly pupils, or he may have to consult the register of those parents who are in favour of corporal punishment. It has even been suggested that Keith and Giles will be wearing different coloured badges—blue for Keith and red for Giles. Whatever is the case, the two pupils are bound to resent the different punishments for the same misdemeanour—let us say, smoking in class—while the teacher will be put in the impossible position of applying different sanctions for the same offence. That is the reality of what the Secretary of State is offering the House, and right hon. and hon. Members should realise it.
  Mr. Richard Tracey: Should I assume from what the hon. Gentleman has said that if a Labour Government were in power, he would say to the parents of Keith, "Caning will be abolished; you will have no say"? The hon. Gentleman must admit that at least the Bill gives parents a choice. How will he explain his attitude to parents who believe that caning is an appropriate punishment?
  Mr. Radice: If parents believe in caning, they can administer it at home. The House knows that the Labour party is in favour of abolishing corporal punishment.
  Once the European Court of Human Rights had made its decision, in practical terms there was no real alternative to abolition. Otherwise two classes of discipline would be created. That is the point that I have been trying to make. It is the overwhelming argument against the Bill, and the reason why hon. Members should vote against it.
  The difficulties for schools do not end there. In primary and secondary schools, governors will have to write to parents and then compile a register of those who do not object in writing to corporal punishment. The procedure will be slightly different for nursery schools. I did not realise that teachers still hit three and four-year-old children. However, I am reminded by the Bill that that is a possibility. For nursery schools, local education authorities will have the responsibility of drawing up the register or, perhaps, getting rid of it — I am not sure what the Secretary of State has in mind. He appears to be offering Conservative Members in favour of corporal punishment the carrot that it might be possible to introduce more corporal punishment than currently exists. I think that that is basically dishonest because I do not believe that that will happen.
  The Bill will create additional problems for schools and local education authorities. It is a farcical nonsense, and the Secretary of State, the Minister and Conservative Back Benchers are well aware of that. We are considering an absolute nonsense. It is arguable that the Bill does not even carry out the minimum requirements of the decision by the European Court of Human Rights in the Campbell and Cosans case—which is to ensure that parents who are opposed to corporal punishment have their wishes respected. If parents fail to dissent in writing, they will be assumed to be in favour of corporal punishment, whether or not that is the case.
  Hon. Members should bear in mind a further point, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan). He said that there are 30
  50
  cases currently before the court at Strasbourg of children having been beaten. It is possible that the court will rule that corporal punishment is not only against article 2 but against article 3 of the European Convention on Human rights, which states that no one shall be subject to "degrading treatment or punishment."
  Mr. Cormack: I am somewhat comforted to know that the hon. Gentleman supports the convention so strongly. Can I therefore infer that he supports that part of it which gives parents the right to pay for their children's education?
  Mr. Radice: I should like to look rather more carefully at that point. As far as I am aware, no case has arisen on that point in this country—
  Mr. Cormack: Give a straight answer.
  Mr. Radice: I am not prepared to give the hon. Gentleman a yes or no answer. My father paid for a privileged education for me. The important issue is what one does for one's children. I should like to know how many Conservative Members sent their children to comprehensive schools?
  Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: I did, for one.
  Mr. Radice: Well, bully for the hon. Lady. I respect her more now.
  Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: We chose the school because it was a jolly good school.
  Mr. Radice: If the court rules that corporal punishment is against article 3, the Government will be forced—whether or not they like it—to ban corporal punishment. The tragedy is that the Secretary of State has not had the courage to take the only feasible and practical course, which is to abolish corporal punishment.
  It is significant that there is a difference between the response of the Secretary of State for Education and Science and that of the Secretary of State for Scotland. I am not surprised that the Secretary of State for Scotland is not here today — [Interruption.] If the right hon. Gentleman's underlings would listen, I shall tell them why I am not surprised. On 10 July 1984, he told the House:
  "Compliance with the court's judgment … would be best secured by completion of the voluntary process of elimination of corporal punishment in education authority schools." —[Official Report, 10 July 1984; Vol. 63, c. 448.]
  Some hon. Members may conclude that the Secretary of State for Scotland is relying too much on voluntary persuasion, but he has not done too badly so far. As the House knows, the vast majority of Scottish education authorities have abolished corporal punishment. Hon. Members may wonder why the right hon. Gentleman has allowed Scottish schools to be included in the Bill and why there is not a separate Bill for Scotland, given the different circumstances about which the Secretary of State for Education and Science has been telling us. At least the Secretary of State for Scotland has understood quite clearly that the game is up. Accordingly, he has written to all Scottish education authorities urging them to abolish corporal punishment as soon as possible. That was the sensible thing to do. It would be a credible posture for the Secretary of State for Education and Science to take also; it is not credible to do what he is doing this afternoon.
  Not for the first time, the Scots are taking a more progressive view than the English about education. Perhaps the Secretary of State should take a trip north of

  51
  the border for a seminar on the subject. The truth is that he has ducked the issue and, instead, has brought this pathetic little Bill before us. It is an evasion of responsibility that exposes him to ridicule and derision — as we have seen already this afternoon. It has exposed our schools to an unworkable system of punishment.
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: I have already asked the hon. Gentleman a question, which he said he would answer. He has not done so. He has constantly said that important decisions should be left to local authorities and school governing bodies. That is precisely what the Bill does. It may be that criticisms of the Bill are well founded, but why are the Opposition not allowing the school governing bodies—or, in some cases, local authorities—to decide this matter?
  Mr. Radice: I have explained the reason quite carefully. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman was not listening. The decision of the Court of Human Rights has made it almost impossible—indeed, I would say wholly impossible —to continue with corporal punishment in our schools. By creating two classes of discipline, the Bill creates two classes of pupils. That will make discipline very difficult.
  It would have been a legitimate position for the Government to have come to the House and said, as the Secretary of State for Scotland said, that the Court of Human Rights had reached a decision and that, therefore, local authorities should support the abolition of corporal punishment. The decision would still have been left to local authorities and school governing bodies, but at least the Government would have had a defensible position on discipline. Now, they do not have a defensible position at all.
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: The Labour party's policy is to deprive school governors and education authorities of the power to manage schools for which they are responsible.
  Mr. Radice: The hon. Gentleman had better talk to the Secretary of State for Scotland. He should try to present a logical argument. Of course, I know that he wants to defend the Secretary of State for Education and Science. We all like the right hon. Gentleman but he has introduced a "total nonsense Bill"; I quote the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway). It is not surprising that the right hon. Gentleman has been exposed to ridicule and derision.
  The Labour party is against corporal punishment in principle. It is barbaric, inhumane and degrading both to the chastiser and the chastised.
  Mr. Cormack: Except on the picket line.
  Mr. Radice: I know that the hon. Gentleman will be voting in the same Lobby as the Opposition tonight. I suppose that that might cause him to make cheap remarks. The Labour party is against corporal punishment in principle and also because it does not work. It is not a deterrent. It does not improve discipline. On the contrary, the evidence suggests that it can be counter-productive. The Secretary of State often quotes the Rutter study when dealing with other matters and he often quotes it at me. It suggests that there is a tendency for high levels of corporal punishment to be associated with rather worse behaviour.
  52
  I wish to reassure those who are worried and concerned that abolition had been implemented successfully in every European country apart from Britain. About 90 per cent. of Scottish schools do not practise corporal punishment. It is significant that of the 16 local education authorities which have abolished corporal punishment in England, none has reversed its position. When the Conservatives came to power in Waltham Forest they intelligently dropped their pledge to restore corporal punishment. That was a sensible thing to do.
  During the debate on the Queen's Speech the hon. Member for Ealing, North asked me to provide feasible and workable alternatives to corporal punishment. As the evidence suggests that corporal punishment is counter-productive, it would be wrong to provide the options for which the hon. Gentleman asks. However he has been courageous enough to call the Bill a nonsense, and bully for him. The hon. Gentleman receives my accolade, as did the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman), who is now leaving the Chamber. I wish to reassure the hon. Gentleman, if he needs reassuring, that a high standard of behaviour is linked to a considerable extent with a firm, constructive and purposeful teaching which leads, as the Opposition's amendment suggests, to an atmosphere of co-operation in which good discipline can be maintained and education quality raised.
  Mrs. Kellett-Bowman rose—
  Mr. Radice: No, I shall not give way.
  Mrs. Kellet-Bowman: The hon. Gentleman said that I was leaving the Chamber.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. The hon. Lady must not persist if the hon. Gentleman who has the Floor is not giving way.
  Mr. Radice rose—
  Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) referred to me and said that I was leaving the Chamber. I left the Chamber to get some extra paper but he is implying that I had lost interest in the debate. I asked him to allow me to intervene so that I could explain to him my reason for leaving the Chamber.
  Mr. Radice: I fully accept the hon. Lady's explanation and now she has it on the record.
  Mr. Cormack: Does the hon. Gentleman believe in corporal punishment now?
  Mr. Radice: I was saying that good schools and good teachers have no trouble in maintaining discipline and providing an atmosphere and ethos that is conducive to learning. Of course problems and difficulties arise in the classroom but there are, as the Secretary of State said, a variety of options ranging from reprimands, reports, parental involvement, withdrawal, suspension to exclusion. These options are available to local education authorities and schools. It is incorrect to say that corporal punishment is essential in the maintenance of good discipline or that there are not other, more effective, sanctions available.
  There are at least three major hurdles facing the Bill. First, there is Second Reading. I hope very much that Conservative Members will support the Opposition's amendment when the Division takes place.
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: Certainly not.
  Mr. Radice: Secondly, there is the deliberation that the Bill will receive in Committee.
  Mr. Cormack: Really.
  Mr. Radice: Sometimes instruction has to be basic in this place, especially when Conservative Members are listening to me. I warn the Secretary of State that we shall try to amend the Bill to make it an abolition rather than an exemption Bill — [Interruption.] Would the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) like to intervene?
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: I can never resist an opportunity to intervene. Surely the hon. Gentleman is telling us what we already know.
  Mr. Flannery: What a clever boy.
  Mr. Radice: Perhaps it would be a good thing for the hon. Member for Grantham to be a member of the Committee that considers the Bill. If he does become a member of it, we can try to build an alliance. I can assure him that it is quite fun being in Committee. If he does not know much about that, I hope that he will take the opportunity to increase his knowledge of such matters.
  The final hurdle is the other place. I think that there is a good chance that the Bill will be defeated there or amended. I suspect that that is what Ministers are playing for. If the Bill is enacted in its existing form, I must advise all local authorities, especially Labour-controlled ones, to proceed as quickly as possible to abolition because, if chaos in our schools is to be avoided, abolition will be the only sensible response.
  Of course, hon. Members will be well aware that there is a Machiavellian theory that the Secretary of State has produced an unworkable Bill because secretly he wants to abolish corporal punishment but does not dare say so. I am not sure whether he really knows his own mind on this issue. It is my view that in this instance, as with student grants, the right hon. Gentleman is out of touch with the real world.
  Whatever are the motives of the Secretary of State, I am convinced that over the next five years, and whether we have a Labour or a Conservative Government, we shall abolish coporal punishment. Ironically, the main architect of abolition will be the Secretary of State, who is asking the House to give a Second Reading to an unfair and unworkable Bill. I urge all hon. Members who have regard for the good reputation of this place to vote for the Opposition's amendment.
  5.28 pm
  Sir Ian Percival: Like many of my right hon. and hon. Friends, I deplore the Bill. However, I shall vote for its Second Reading this evening. I want therefore to take a moment or two of the time of the House to explain those two apparently irreconcilable statements. It is right that we should face the consequences of what we are doing. We are interfering with a power that has been vested in teachers for a long time by the common law of England to use reasonable force in the maintenance of discipline. It has been vested in them by common law because they were regarded as acting in loco parentis. My hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) was right about that. At present parents do not have power to override that right, and we shall give them that power if the Bill is enacted. I shall vote for giving parents that power, but it is only right that we should face what we are doing.
  54
  The power of teachers to inflict corporal punishment is a right to use reasonable force in the maintaining of discipline. All this nonsense about barbarity and inhumane and degrading punishment is typical of the sort of argument that so overstates the case that it defeats its own ends. If a teacher did anything that came remotely within any of those descriptions, he would be as open to prosecution in the courts as if the power had never existed. All of us would support a parent who took a teacher to court in those circumstances. What we cannot stomach is the parent who takes to court a teacher who has used the mildest of force in the pursuit of discipline in circumstances that would try the patience of a saint. Let us forget all about barbarity, inhumane and degrading treatment and all that nonsense.
  I hope that we shall not hear anyone say that we should not try to maintain discipline. Heaven knows, that mistake has been made often enough in our great country and has gone a long way towards undermining some of the virtues and values that we love so much.
  The arguments of those who oppose the retention of the power to use reasonable force for the maintenance of discipline underestimate the position of the teacher. Have they ever tried to keep discipline in a class? If someone can keep discipline without using force, so be it; every parent tries to do that. However, it is arrogant to overlook the possibility that the teacher who has used reasonable force knew what was the best in the circumstances and what was best for the child involved and for the other children in the class. We must not forget the other children. Some unruly little brats stop a lot of other children getting the education that they deserve.
  Another reason why I do not like the Bill is that it will cause administrative difficulties. However, I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on meeting that problem head on and accepting it. The alternative was the abolition of corporal punishment. I caution my hon. Friends against making too much of the administrative difficulties argument.
  It is not coincidental that those who oppose corporal punishment are seizing on the Bill and arguing that it cannot work and must lead to the abolition of corporal punishment. Those of us who wish parents to retain a choice should not fall into the trap of mulitplying the arguments of those who want to use the difficulties created by the Bill as an argument for getting rid of corporal punishment. I beg my hon. Friends to see that danger.
  I do not believe that the administrative difficulties will be as great as some fear. I believe—and all the statistics show—that a substantial majority of parents favour the use of corporal punishment. If I am right, the number of parents who opt out may be comparatively small — probably a minority.
  Secondly, I beg hon. Members not to be influenced by the argument that corporal punishment will necessarily cause terrible psychological problems for children. Children are a lot tougher than many of us give them credit for being. If I were a child, I should hate my parents to opt me out. The hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) laughs, but he is not a very good example for the propositions that he has been putting forward.
  If I were a child, I should not want to be opted out. First, I would not want to be thought a cissy. Secondly — I went to a school where corporal punishment was used within the limits of which I have spoken, and without causing any resentment — more often than not, one

  55
  favoured the quick punishment rather than being shut up for an hour or two. There were far too many other things that one would rather be doing than being kept in detention. I much preferred to take the punishment and get it over with. As I said, I never felt any resentment and I never noticed resentment in any other boy. Let us not be too bothered about the effects in this area on children. It is far from certain that those who are still liable to corporal punishment will think that they are hard done by. I hope that parents will remember that it may be the other way round.
  Yes, there will be administrative difficulties. I know a little about them because I was a Law Officer when the decision was made by the European Court and I had a part in the consideration of what should be done. However, I do not believe that the administrative difficulties will be nearly as great as some people fear. A bigger worry to me is that those difficulties may be built upon by those who wish to do away with corporal punishment.
  Sir Kenneth Lewis: As my right hon. and learned Friend was involved after the decision of the European Court, can he advise us whether, if this does not work, we can go back to the court and ask permission to revert to normal?
  Sir Ian Percival: Even as an old friend and colleague of my hon. Friend, I cannot advise him on that matter. It is a difficult question, and one for the present Law Officers rather than for me.
  All my instincts are against what is proposed. I have tried to summarise the positive arguments, but so many of the arguments against it are so wet. There is talk about "hitting" a child of three. Has the hon. Member for Durham, North never heard of the word "smack"? Why try to make the issue emotive by talking about "hitting a child"? What is so awful about a little smack? A great swipe that knocks somebody flying is to be deplored, but emotive language unbalances the argument.
  It may be felt to be unbelievable that the judgment of the European Court should have decided that corporal punishment can come within the scope of the provisions about "philosophical conviction". I thought that we all accepted that that phrase was a safeguard to prevent the indoctrination of our children with philosophical ideas with which we disagree. I applaud the British judge on the court for the clarity with which he saw the law and the independence and clarity with which he stated it in is dissenting judgment.
  However, now that the court has concluded that if someone has a philosophical conviction that his child should not be subjected to corporal punishment, and there is no right of appeal, I should be interested to see whether it works the other way as well. Perhaps a parent who has a philosophical conviction that teachers ought to be able to use corporal punishment might care to take a case to the court one day. Those who say that we must give effect to the European judgment because it would allow the philosophical convictions of some parents to be met ought to realise that we ought not to go against the philosophical convictions of parents taking the other view who are just as entitled to their views.
  Lastly, a Bill like this may in fact pose some danger to the cause of human rights. I suspect that every hon. Member in the Chamber, most of whom will be saying
  56
  nasty things about the Bill, counts himself as a strong supporter of the cause of human rights. But I tremble sometimes for the way in which we are going. Many distinguished people in this country would make the whole European Convention on Human Rights part of our domestic law. What of that, when we see what has happened in this case about corporal punishment and philosophical convictions? There is a good deal in what my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) said a moment ago. When we have such judgments and have to act on them, many people ask why we have to go against our own philosophical convictions because foreigners tell us to do so. I do not agree with that attitude.
  The Times once carried the headline:
  "Fog in the Channel. Continent isolated."
  We have come a long way since then. We must work with our European colleagues in this sphere, as in other spheres, if we are to further the objective, which we all share, of increasing human rights. However, there is a danger that if things go the way in which these things have gone, far from furthering the cause of human rights, we may actually put people against that cause.
  Having said all that, why then shall I vote for this Bill? Because, as often happens in life, where one has few options one must take the least unattractive of them. It is not a mere matter of words for us to say that when we enter into international agreements, we must stand by them. Indeed, the decisions which it is most important we do implement are frequently those we do not like. We have no difficulty in implementing those we like. I recall the present Lord Chancellor saying that the only laws that matter are those we do not like. It is easy for us to obey those we like. We must also obey the ones we do not like.
  So long as we remain a member of a convention of this type, we must implement the decisions of its court. I am glad that the Secretary of State is implementing them with the minimum of interference with the rights that we want to preserve. Parents who share my convictions and those of many of my hon. Friends will still be able to see that corporal punishment—where it is not prevented by the governors or local authority—reasonable force for the maintenance of discipline is available to those into whose care they have entrusted their children.
  5.42 pm
  Mr. Clement Freud: This is a poor little Bill. My fear is that its opponents will be so disparate that there will be little happy conversation in our Lobby at the end of the debate. What we have had so far is akin to armed men attacking a jelly.
  It might be right at the outset for me to make clear the position of my party. Liberal policy on education is to abolish corporal punishment, while recognising the need to support teachers more effectively in promoting good discipline. I share substantially the philosophy of the right hon. and learned Member for Southport (Sir I. Percival) on this subject, except that I do not believe that people take pleasure in seeing other people's children beaten when they themselves do not believe that that is right.
  Sir Ian Percival: Nothing in the world that I said could suggest that anybody took pleasure in seeing anybody beaten, and I trust that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw that remark.
  Mr. Freud: The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that there was a sort of justice in the imposition of corporal punishment.
  Sir Ian Percival: I said nothing about anybody enjoying it.
  Mr. Freud: If there is a sort of justice in it, and if one has a conviction that one does not want it for one's own child, I take the inference—and I am happy to withdraw it if the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not enjoy watching other people's children being beaten—
  Sir Ian Percival: Really!
  Mr. Freud: For hundreds of years it has been recognised that corporal punishment is not a satisfactory way of chastising children. In the 17th century a children's petition was presented to Parliament as a
  "modest remonstrance of that intolerable grievance."
  In 1883 the Committee of the Privy Council on Education reported:
  "the more thoroughly a teacher is qualified for his position by skill, character and personal influence, the less necessary it is for him to resort to corporal punishment."
  Dr. Arnold said of corporal punishment:
  "it is a defeat for the teacher and a counsel of despair."
  I do not understand why we who are trying to distance ourselves from those arcane malpractices should now, when we have advanced in every other respect and when we no longer send children up chimneys or down pits, should pride ourselves on continuing corporal punishment.
  A recent initiative to abolish corporal punishment came from the Plowden committee in 1967. It reported:
  "The excessive use of punishment of any kind should be regarded as an acknowledgment of someone's failure."
  Any punishment of a corporal nature is bad, because beating a child does not produce a better child but tends to produce a more bitter and truculent one. If I believed anything else, I would not be arguing as I am.
  As the only country in Europe which retains a teacher's right to spank, hit or beat children, we are not badly advised to look again. I regret the type of Bill that this is, because I am an abolitionist. Athough the measure is designed with some intent and principle in mind, rarely can a Bill have come from the Secretary of State's Department so lacking in either of those respects, so limited in its purpose and so devoid of spine. Nor have we had many Bills which will be so incomprehensible to those whom it will affect and which will please so few people because, as hon. Members have shown, it goes too far or does not go far enough.
  The Bill has no guiding principle behind it. There is no indication that the concept of discipline, self-discipline or punishment has been understood by the Department, that the right hon. Gentleman has an appreciation of the problems facing our schools and teachers or of the fact that many teachers will not punish, even if their local education authorities recommend them to do so, and that many unions are opposed to it.
  Worse still, there is no analysis of the moral or educational basis of corporal punishment. On what grounds, for example, are we to be the only country in Europe to retain the sanction? Why is this measure being presented when there are over 30 outstanding cases awaiting judgment in the Commission, judgments which may render this piece of legislation outwith the convention? As the hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr.
  58
  Radice) said, as we debate the Bill through its different stages we may be overtaken by events as the result of new judgments from the European Court of Human Rights.
  To encourage the gradual introduction of other, more imaginative, forms of punishment in our schools is a sensible idea. I attended a school at which other boys were punished but, because the views of my family were known, I was not corporally punished. Instead, I was made to learn Le Morte D'Arthur and Chaucer's prologue, which I still know by heart.
  Mr. Cormack: He must have been very bad.
  Mr. Freud: There is nothing so bad about Chaucer's prologue.
  Mr. Cormack: I meant that, as a boy, the hon. Gentleman must have been rather bad if he had time to learn it by heart.
  Mr. Freud: I hope that the hon. Gentleman has an opportunity to make his own speech, when he can develop that, if he so wishes.
  Why do the Government persist in seeing corporal punishment as a solution? What great virtue do they see in our spending our time discussing such a pathetic and potentially damaging little Bill? Although the Minister did not say so, one suspects that it is a crumb to help assuage the voracious appetites of his hon. Friends who gave him such a hard time when he had to explain his proposals on student grants, and who gave me a hard time because I was in the next Committee Room hoping for a well-attended meeting of the Friends of the British Council. Few turned up for my meeting, because they wanted to hear the Secretary of State. [Interruption.] A few came.
  What will the Bill do for our schools? It will not do a lot. It will do even less for our school secretaries and administrators, because it will impose even more work on those overworked people. This will happen particularly in the small comprehensive schools, which are already facing increasing amounts of paper work. What is worse, the new work load will be such that teachers will never be sure whether the list is up to date or whether a mistake has been made. Teachers will feel considerable guilt if things go wrong.
  What does the Bill do for parents whose rights, we are told, the legislation respects and who are trying to bring up their children with a sense of fairness and equity and to face the immense problem—to a child—of being "different"? Will parents need to explain that punishment and right and wrong have different meanings for different children? How will parents react to the ritualisation and bureaucratisation of punishment which the Bill will usher in?
  How can the Secretary of State think that the Bill does anything to encourage greater responsibility by parents for their children's behaviour and more involvement in what happens in schools? If behavioural problems have as much origin in the home as in the school, relying on the simplistic answer of the cane seems naive.
  Most importantly, what does the Bill do for the teacher? The teacher will now have to stop in the middle of administering a punishment and say to the child, "Hold on a minute while I check the punishment register. Stay there and do not do anything." The harassed teacher will then go to the school office and say, "Can I punish this child?

  59
  Are you sure it is this child, and not the child's brother? Are the parents separated? Do we have consent from both the father and the mother?"
  To the teacher who asks, "What can I do when I am confronted by a violent 16-year-old?" I say that the Bill is no answer and that the child does not suddenly become violent. The cane is not the answer and, with respect, has never been the answer. The child will not be reformed by the imposition of institutionalised violence, nor will he be deterred, as all the evidence shows. We should be looking beyond the expression of his fears and frustrations. Those who support the Bill seem to think that there is a simple solution to these problems. I believe that it is time we thought again.
  How will a teacher teach his children self-discipline or to understand what discipline means when he faces the scenario that I have mentioned? Surely the admittedly nebulous concepts of justice and equity are part of what we should include when we speak of educating our children.
  In an intervention the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) asked the hon. Member for Durham, North whether, if he had such faith in the European Court of Human Rights, he would preserve the private sector. If I were asked that question, I would say that I believe in the retention of his private sector of education, but I believe that it should become truly independent. I do not believe that giving charitable status to a concept as uncharitable as Eton, Harrow or Winchester makes much sense.
  Liberal Members reject the belief that caning is a solution to any problem in our schools. We reject the Bill, whose only point seems to be to meet a ruling of the European convention: this is laudable but misguided, in that there is nothing more—no reasoned defence and no attempt to make our schools better or to tackle the real problem of motivation and discipline. I hope the Minister will promise us that he will examine those education authorities which no longer impose corporal punishment and ascertain whether they have found an answer. I advise the House to follow the example of the Liberal party and to reject the Bill. As the hon. Member for Durham, North said, there are many hurdles to come—but none need come up. Kill off the Bill tonight.
  5.54 pm
  Mr. Harry Greenway: I shall not follow the abolitionist path taken by the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Freud). I would like to send the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) to a comprehensive school for a couple of years so that they will really be at the "chalk face" and will know every aspect of this problem. They speak as though they have known comprehensive schools from the inside, but they have not.
  I hope that I have not been too damaged by the accolade of the hon. Member for Durham, North, which went straight to my heart. The hon. Gentleman's points could be damaging to teachers, especially when he makes trite remarks about the need for teaching to be firm, constructive and purposeful. Tell that to the east end teachers struggling to control many children who are deprived and damaged in certain ways. The hon.
  60
  Gentleman needs to go beyond such broad, sweeping statements and think of the extra problems faced by teachers.
  Mr. Radice: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Greenway: With respect, I did not interrupt the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Radice: The hon. Gentleman did not dare.
  Mr. Greenway: I have demolished the hon. Gentleman's arguments so many times in the House that I believe I should let him off today.
  There are two separate discussions about punishment in schools. The Labour party and the National Union of Teachers hold one view. I notice that the hon. Member for Durham, North did not refer to the views of the National Association of Schoolmasters/Union of Women Teachers, which believes that corporal punishment is a sensible form of punishment.
  Mr. Radice: The hon. Gentleman should give way on that point.
  Mr. Greenway: The hon. Member for Durham, North tried to give the impression that all the unions oppose corporal punishment.
  Mr. Radice: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Greenway: I will not give way at the moment.
  The hon. Member for Durham, North takes an idealistic line on corporal punishment and behaviour in general, as does the Society of Teachers Opposed to Physical Punishment and others who agree with him, including the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East. They say that all children are basically good and that punishment is therefore irrelevant and unnecessary. They say that it is wrong to use force to bend children to one's will. They believe that Rousseau was right when he said that children are basically self-motivated and self-motivated for good and that, if children are left to their own devices, all will be well.
  The hon. Member for Durham, North should consider what the great Thomas Arnold of Rugby said:
  "My object will be, if possible, to produce Christian men, for Christian boys I can scarcely hope to make."
  That point should be borne in mind.
  The other view on punishment in schools is held by the practical person—the schoolmaster. The hon. Member for Durham, North has conceded that I have been in comprehensive schools. I have been involved at the top of them for 23 years, so I have dealt with every disciplinary problem, and many more, in areas such as King's Cross and Lewisham.
  Schoolmasters and all teachers need a practical approach. One cannot always be intellectual about the discipline one administers, but one must be intelligent about it. I would not say that no schoolmaster has never said that corporal punishment is a cure, but it is a deterrent. If sparingly, effectively and thoughtfully used, it can be a deterrent. I am not defending massive beatings by grown men of schoolchildren, but, carefully administered, the use of corporal punishment is sensible and right as a punishment for gross bullying, vandalism, and other misdemeanours.
  Corporal punishment is sparingly used today. It is slowly going out of the punishment book, but it is still there. It is wrong to argue that it should suddenly be withdrawn by a sweep of the legislative pen. Corporal

  61
  punishment has parental and teacher support. What is done in schools must have, if possible, parental and teacher support. That fundamental value must be considered in determining the use of corporal punishment. Children must always be given equal punishment. That punishment should be given when needed and should never be malicious.
  What are the alternatives? What are we talking about? I will mention some alternatives that the hon. Member for Durham, North gave and some that he did not. There are sin bins, lines and extra maths. As I have said before in the House, what does it do for the teaching and learning of maths if a teacher says, "You will stay behind to do some maths tonight for your misbehaviour."? Punishment runs might be good. There is sarcasm. We have had a little of that in the House, and we all accept it. However, sarcasm destroys and damages a child's mind. That is much worse than a tap on the bottom or somewhere else. Do they advocate shouting or suspension? Expulsion has been advocated.
  If the Labour and Liberal parties advocate suspension and expulsion as an alternative to corporal punishment, they should know that almost always those children who need to be in school for educational, social and other reasons are put outside by these, to their lifelong damage. Moderate corporal punishment is much better for those children.
  What else do the hon. Gentleman and his Labour colleagues advocate? The juvenile court? The abolition of corporal punishment can bring the juvenile court much closer. Perhaps they advocate psychiatrists, but the psychology service is already overworked.
  We must take account of the fact that most teachers are in favour of corporal punishment. My experience, which is long and well known to the House, is that some of the keenest abolitionists are the first to run to the head or deputy head's office and say, "That boy is out of hand. Will you give him the cane?" However, they do not advocate corporal punishment; they are against it, they always say.
  I can give an example of a teacher who ran to me. No woman was keener on abolishing corporal punishment than that lady. She burst into my office one day at the end of school and said, "Two horrible boys have just let down the tyres of my car. Will you catch them and give them a good hiding?". I said, "Miss Jones, you have always been opposed to corporal punishment. What are we talking about?" She said, "I cannot have that. What is to be done about it?" That is what happens in some schools. The abolitionists do not accept what they advocate when they are challenged or upset. That is a telling indictment of them.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett rose—
  Mr. Greenway: I shall not give way, because I think the hon. Gentleman will be replying to the debate.
  The Bill is damaging because it permits unequal treatment in schools. I was pleased when my right hon. Friend said that in some areas there are schools side by side, one of which has corporal punishment and one of which is against it, which the parents know when they enter their child. It is in the school prospectus. That is the
  62
  way that we should go. I hope that the Bill can be turned in that direction. I shall support the Bill because I shall seek to amend it.
  I cannot agree with the hon. Member for Durham, North and the Liberal party because they are seeking to make the Bill an abolition Bill for the slight and flimsy reasons that they have given. The Bill must be amended. People inside and outside the House have pointed out instances that cause serious anxiety. It is wrong to damage the position of a teacher acting in loco parentis. I know that the Labour party wishes to take that away altogether.
  To make teachers subject to civil actions because they have behaved as a parent might in certain circumstances, as the Bill does, is to damage the finest set of working people — the teaching profession — and to make life unnecessarily difficult for them.
  The objections of the much-respected National Association of Head Teachers should be considered. It objects to the Bill and says that it creates an obligation upon schools to maintain a list of all pupils who can be subject to corporal punishment. The association feels that that is an unwarranted imposition. It argues that it would have been far better if the list merely recorded those people who were subject to parental exemption. I ask my hon. Friend to take up that point and respond to it when he replies. The association says:
  "We remain concerned that the heads and teachers will be at risk of civil action when a genuine mistake is made in the application of corporal punishment to an individual pupil who has been exempted."
  Everyone can make mistakes. The Bill contains no let-out for the head or teacher who makes a mistake.
  The association also says:
  "We strongly believe that only those heads and teachers who act in deliberate breach of parental wishes or who are guilty of recklessness or gross negligence, should be liable to civil action."
  That would be much more reasonable than the Bill's position on that matter. I argue strongly in support of heads and teachers with whom I formerly worked and with whom I am in close contact in advancing their objections.
  I am sorry to see that the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East is not in his place. He was on exceedingly thin ground when he said that we should emulate Sweden and abolish corporal punishment and not be the only country to retain it. Only a week or two ago on the radio he was arguing that we should not emulate Sweden on loans. I happen to agree with him about that, but he is trying to have the argument both ways. He should see the error of his argument.
  I ask for the guidance of my hon. Friend when he replies on the subject of the hysterical pupil. The Bill does not mention, and nor did my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, the teacher who has to deal with a pupil who has become completely hysterical. In schools or anywhere else, traditionally one has had to give a good hard slap across the face or elsewhere. Sometimes that is the only possible thing to do to bring back reason. That point should be covered. It should be made clear that teachers and heads who do that are covered.
  May we know how many weeks will have to elapse before parents who have not replied to an invitation to opt in and accept corporal punishment will be said to have done so? There are many parents who cannot read. They could not read a letter sent to them on that point. They may have to get someone else to read it for them. There are others who cannot write and who never respond to any

  63
  letter. They are almost always the parents of children for whom punishment should be thought about carefully. I should like my hon. Friend to consider the position of such children and parents when he replies.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does the hon. Member accept that any school that has the interests of such a child at heart will ask the parent to come to the school, when a decision will be taken as a result of discussions between the teacher and the parent? One of the objections to the Bill is that it does not do more to foster co-operation between the parent and the school, and to make it clear that parents have a responsibility for discipline.
  Mr. Greenway: There are some parents who would never come to the school, even if one promised them £1,000 or a pint of beer. What the hon. Member for Denton and Redditch (Mr. Bennett) says sounds grand, but it is not entirely realistic.
  My right hon. Friend made a valuable point when he said that we have to reaffirm our acceptance of the European Court of Human Rights, and its charter every five years. Presumably that gives us the right to renegotiate at that time on any point on which we have reservations and indeed to opt out altogether on such points. I hope that, as the European Court is making such nonsense of discipline in our schools, the Government will assure us that they will bear that point in mind when the next five-yearly negotiating time arrives.
  How long will the established policy of the school have to last before it can be reversed? Once a school has established its policy under the legislation, will that policy have to last for a year, two years or five years, or could it be overturned at a week's or a day's notice?
  How much notice will parents have to give of a change in their wishes for their child? That is another important point. Presumably they could not, within minutes of hearing that the child was to be given a smack, announce that, although they had formerly agreed to corporal punishment, they were now opposed to it.
  I have no hesitation in voting for the Bill. Bad though it is — nonsensical though it is — I believe that it is amendable, and that the Opposition's policy is destructive or worse. In Sweden, children of five can take their parents to court for giving them a smack. That is the situation that the Labour party appears to advocate. We must avoid it at all costs.
  6.13 pm
  Mr. Martin Flannery: I find it almost unbelievable that a group of reputedly intelligent human beings should be discussing such nonsense. The Bill is so backward as to be almost unbelievable. Those who are in favour of corporal punishment would be just as defeated by the passage of the Bill as those who, like me, are opposed to it. We are searching for convoluted methods of helping people off a hook on which they have impaled themselves. The situation is so silly that I defy anyone who has passed the infant school stage to believe what we are talking about.
  If we examine what has been said repeatedly in the debate, we must assume the existence of some kind of British exceptionalism that we are arrogating to ourselves. Perhaps, like the prevention of terrorism legislation, the
  64
  Bill should be renewed every six months. From what some people say, one might think that children were creating terror on a grand scale in our schools.
  We all want discipline in school. Those of us who have taught know how necessary it is. I have been opposed to corporal punishment throughout a long teaching life. I can never understand how — witout saying it in so many words — we dare to accuse all the nations that have abolished corporal punishment of enduring utter chaos in their schools as a result, while, because we retain corporal punishment, we have wonderful discipline. That is nonsense.
  The hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway), with whom I have worked as closely as two hon. Members on opposite sides can work, has fallen for that line. How can we possibly believe that, because of corporal punishment, we, out of the whole of Europe, have discipline in our schools, while all those poor, benighted souls in the Common Market — in which I do not believe — have schools that are in a state of chaos because of the lack of corporal punishment? It is an abuse of teachers in other countries—
  Mr. Forth rose—
  Mr. Flannery: I may give way later.
  British exceptionalism in schools is arrant nonsense. It is akin to gunboat diplomacy.
  Mr. Radice: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Flannery: I would not want the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) to feel abused. Perhaps my hon. Friend would wait a little.
  As any experienced teacher knows, corporal punishment is born of sheer frustration. It eases the situation of a teacher who cannot teach any longer without caning a certain child. It is the last refuge of many good teachers; but it is the first refuge of the poor teacher.
  Many years ago, when I was teaching a junior class—
  Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Flannery: With respect, I should like to tell my anecdote, which is absolutely true.
  Mrs. Kellett-Bowman rose—
  Mr. Flannery: I hope that the hon. Lady will not interrupt me.
  In those days, primary and secondary schools were not so neatly divided. There were junior boys and secondary boys in the school in which I was teaching, as happened in the state system. As hon. Members may remember, many teachers were needed after the war, so an emergency scheme was set up. People had only a year's training. Many of them were ex-service men. We needed them, even though they were inadequately trained. Many of them were far better teachers than they would otherwise have been, because they entered the profession after the war, after long experience of life, rather than being pushed into it by mummy.
  One teacher at that school had been a lieutenant in the Navy. He was a very good person, but, as soon as there was any indiscipline, he felt that he must use the cane. Like me, he had taught primary and secondary school children. He took over a class of mine in which there were 46 nine-year-olds. I had found the class easy and friendly.

  65
  When the head asked me to move around the school and teach history and English to some of the bigger and smaller boys, the teacher to whom I have referred took over my class.
  I still took the class for one or two lessons a week. On one such occasion, a little boy came and stood beside my desk and boasted, "Sir, I have been caned." I asked, "Have you, John? What had you done?" He told me about some peccadillo for which he had been caned. Another child came up with his book and said the same thing. I told him to go and sit down. I then said, "Hands up those boys who have been caned," and 46 boys put up their hands.
  Caning goes on in more than 80 per cent. of our secondary schools. There is a caning every 19 seconds. It closes the channels of learning, makes it more difficult for the teacher to teach, and it has all sorts of bad effects.
  Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Flannery: In a moment. Do not be impatient.
  Most canings are contrary to law and take place in front of a full class. Often small and sensitive children are caned, and the caning makes it difficult to go on teaching them. The caning is not put into a punishment book, as it should be, and is not conducted before witnesses, except children. I fail to see how it helps teaching.
  Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Flannery: I shall have to eventually. Very well.
  Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that he gave his case away when he said that caning is the last refuge of a good teacher? That is precisely the argument that my right hon. and hon. Friends are using. It is a deterrent, and even good teachers need a deterrent.
  Mr. Flannery: As usual, the hon. Lady is wong. Before I said that, I said that caning was born of frustration.
  Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Look at Hansard.
  Mr. Flannery: Perhaps the hon. Lady would stop interrupting me. She knows that I would never interrupt her.
  Caning is born of frustration and has no impact, except a negative one. We are discussing a bizarre Bill which, like caning, is born of frustration. There is an air of panic about the Bill. Ministers have said, "The European Court of Human Rights has made a decision and we must react to it." The only real reaction is the abolition of corporal punishment, but the Tory party could not face that. It could not face abolishing one of its most cherished notions about children. The result is a half-way house which is unfair and utterly unworkable. Conservative Members will not have to implement the Bill. I wish that they would talk to the teachers who are expected to implement it. It is simply not true that teachers agree with the Bill. Even teachers who believe in corporal punishment disagree profoundly with it because they know that it is unworkable and unfair and will help nobody.
  The Bill has been dreamt up by people who do not understand and have never faced the problem. They have merely a memory of what happened to them in their childhood. In many cases that was a long time ago. Teachers oppose the Bill because they know that they will not be able to implement it and that, therefore, matters will be worse.
  Mr. David Evennett: The hon. Gentleman has been a teacher. Does he agree that some teachers believe that physical assaults on teaching staff by pupils are the very form of misdemeanour from which corporal punishment can safeguard them? Does he also agree that that is an important reason for keeping corporal punishment?
  Mr. Flannery: The hon. Gentleman is completely wrong. Statistics prove that when corporal punishment is abolished, the incidence of assaults on teachers is reduced. There is gross indignity in one human being chastised by another, when it would be an assault outside the education system. Physically punishing people up to the age of 18 is bound to arouse passions. Schools which have relied to some extent on corporal punishment will be in most difficulty if the Bill becomes law. There will have to be discussions about how to deal with recalcitrant children.
  The smaller the class, the less difficulty there is in teaching. The abolition of corporal punishment will be expensive. It means having better schools, more teachers and smaller classes. Anyone who has taught knows that there is a point at which a teacher becomes a child minder. We want classes that are small enough to enable teachers to have a one-to-one relationship with pupils and to let the pupils know that the teacher is deeply interested in their problems. Opposition Members are struggling towards that goal, as are many Conservative Members. We all know that the Bill is nonsense.
  We are providing that people under the age of 18 in England and Wales can be beaten, although pupils over the age of 15 in Scotland can choose whether to be beaten. Are we really suggesting that a 17½-year-old boy or girl will walk up to a teacher and say, "I want to be beaten for what I do wrong."? That is claptrap. It is insulting for the House to be expected to vote on such rubbish. We have far better things to do. The Bill is the child of a bureaucratic mind and panic.
  I am sorry that corporal punishment is so deeply ingrained in the Tory party as the best method of bringing up children. I have met ex-pupils, who were never caned in my schools, boasting about how they were caned. It made them feel manly. I have seen people standing at bars saying that caning never hurt or did them any harm. Others look at them quizzically and say to themselves, "Good God! Did it not? We all have our own opinions about that." It is all so manly being 21, starting to shave, boasting about being caned and slapping on the after-shave lotion. Caning has no part in teaching, but, unfortunately, some Conservative Members will go on with it until what is bound to occur occurs.
  There is only one progressive element in the Bill. It opens the way to complete abolition, when it is proved that the Bill is unworkable and backward.
  Most parents do not want their children to be caned. They do not want someone else doing what they do not do. We should not equate a little get-along slap on the leg of a child with standing over him with cane in hand. The older the child, the more terrible it is to stand over him with a cane. He may even take the cane from the teacher and snap it over his knees. That causes a great deal of trouble in secondary schools.
  Sir Keith Joseph: I am sure that the words of the hon. Gentleman are widely read, so I should warn him that even a little "get-along" slap on the leg would count as corporal punishment.
  Mr. Flannery: Conservative members have already used euphemisms that equate caning with the sort of little get-along that I have just mentioned. That is not the way to deal with the problem. No one is complaining about the tiny losses of temper, even though the right hon. Gentleman says that they are wrong and that one should beware of them. My point is that we cannot equate caning with a little slap of that nature.
  Sir Keith Joseph: I should have completed my remarks. A slap that is given as part or as the whole of a punishment constitutes an offence under the Bill.
  Mr. Flannery: I accept that. I reiterate that I am totally against slapping a child. My point is that Conservative Members are equating a slap with caning as though they were the same thing. I am against both. I want good teaching. That means not beating children, but opening the channels of learning by gaining their interest and respect without beatings.
  The fact that private schools are not included in the measure shows that it is fatuous. I understand that in public schools they try to conceal the fact that children are there on public money. If a parent opts out and says that he does not want his child John caned, it will become clear that John comes from the state sector and has an assisted place on taxpayers' money. There will be a stigma attached, as there is with free meals. That is one of the tiny peccadillos of the Bill.
  In its attempt to preserve the backward methods of discipline of the past, the Bill falls between two stools. By doing so, it could lessen and even cause the collapse of discipline in schools. If we had a free vote, the Bill would be rejected, because both sides of the House would oppose the middle way. Conservative Members should have sufficient courage to join us in throwing out a measure in which no one believes and which could deepen rather than solve the problems in our schools.
  6.33 pm
  Mr. David Evennett: I always enjoy listening to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery), and this evening I agreed with some of his points. Unfortunately, many of my right hon. and hon. Friends cannot support the Opposition amendment because of its wording, although our sympathies may be with some of the points that it raises.
  I compliment my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his ministerial colleagues on all the good work that they have done since the Government took office. They have attempted to get to grips with the real problems of education in contemporary Britain. When I listened to the hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) talking about the education policy of the Labour party, I thought back to the last Labour Secretary of State for Education, who now belongs to a different party. She ruined many good schools, allowed standards to decline drastically and ignored the literacy and curriculum problems of schools. Although I agree with Opposition Members who say that the Department should improve the curricula and discipline in schools, when the Labour party was in office quite the opposite occurred.
  I am thankful that since 1979 the Government have been heavily involved in dealing with those real problems. Their record on teacher quality, raising pupils' levels of
  68
  attainment, reviewing examination methods and encouraging greater parental involvement in schools lead us to look forward to future reforms which are in the pipeline. With such a good record, it is regrettable that the Government are obliged to introduce this Bill. It is a hindrance to the progress that they have made in many areas.
  It is regrettable that Government time is being taken up by this so-called reform. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, it is not the Bill that he would have liked to introduce if he had had the choice. It cannot be denied that some measure to reform corporal punishment had to be introduced. Because of the decision of the European Court of Human Rights, the Government must make provision for respecting the philosophical convictions about corporal punishment of parents whose children are educated at public expense.
  Conservative Members believe in abiding by the rule of law. The United Kingdom is a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights and must, therefore, be bound by the rulings of the court, regrettable though they may be. To ignore its decisions would be to breach an undertaking in international law. Conservative Members could never suggest nor condone such a thing.
  Having accepted that some measure of reform is necessary, and having acknowledged that the wishes of parents must be respected, one wonders what effect the Bill will have on discipline in schools, if it is left in its present form. I agree with the hon. Member for Hillsborough that that must be the criterion on which we judge the measure.
  I am a former teacher, and I am only too aware of the difficulties which many teachers face in maintaining discipline. Education can be successful only in an atmosphere conducive to study. Such an atmosphere cannot exist where unruly children disrupt classes. Where corporal punishment is available as an ultimate punishment, discipline is generally maintained. Without it, unruly pupils may face a less painful punishment but a more damaging one.
  Some of my Conservative colleagues have mentioned in interjections that an alternative may be to expel disruptive pupils, who then end up in a so-called sin bin. I regret that, because it means that a child's education may be further prejudiced. I accept that there are other acceptable methods of punishment and that corporal punishment is not widely used. It is rarely used, but it is a deterrent and an ultimate punishment.
  Many people say that disruptive children deserve their fate if they go to a sin bin, but should a child's education be irreversibly harmed because of thoughtless childish behaviour which could be remedied by a few strokes of the cane or a smack, depending on the age of the child? I am not in favour of 17-year-olds being caned. It is not practical. However, it may be a deterrent and a punishment for younger children.
  The decision of the European Court of Human Rights requires the Government only to make allowances for the philosophical convictions of parents about corporal punishment. The court did not say that the punishment was wrong. It did not decide that it was cruel or degrading, contrary to what Opposition Members have said.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: No Opposition Member suggested that the court said that in its judgment. We

  69
  simply referred to the 20 cases that are pending, some of them under a different article, and the possibility that the Government might have to legislate again.
  Mr. Evennett: I accept that the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman did not say that, but the hon. Member for Hillsborough suggested that it was cruel and degrading. However, I agree that the court did not say that—
  Mr. Flannery: I did not say that the Court of Human Rights said that it was degrading. I said that I believed it was degrading.
  Mr. Evennett: I accept that the court did not say that and that the hon. Gentleman did. It would appear that the Opposition are suggesting that the punishment is degrading.
  The Bill seems to be leading us along the path of abolition, not by the will of the House, but because its provisions, if implemented, will cause serious problems to schools, and especially to teachers. They will have to abandon corporal punishment, and the result will be abolition by default. We cannot have it both ways. If we want greater professionalism from teachers, we must give them as much support as possible to carry out their duties. The Bill will not only fail to support them, but will undermine discipline, which is the essential foundation upon which teachers must rely.
  Despite my right hon. Friend's interesting and informative speech, I am still a little confused about opting in and opting out. He suggested that letters will be sent to parents telling them that they have the option of putting their child on the register. It will be difficult, in schools where the majority of parents decide to opt their children out, to maintain a couple or half a dozen children on the corporal punishment list. That would be unfair to the parents and to the children. There is a large question mark against whether parents will write to the schools and say, "Yes, I want my child to be punished if necessary." The result may be that a minority of pupils at the school will be liable to corporal punishment. Many parents who saw that would then opt their children out, and corporal punishment in that institution would end.
  The teachers unions, the press and nearly everyone has been against some aspects of the Bill. During the years in which I have been interested in education, no other education legislation has attracted so much criticism.
  Parental choice has become a keynote of the Government's education policy. I hope that, having suggested to my right hon. Friend that parental choice could be restricted by the Bill, he will consider it slightly differently. We must conform with the court's ruling, but of the three options that my right hon. Friend mentioned in his speech, I wonder whether he would reconsider the option to designate schools and allow school governors and local authorities to determine whether a school should be subject to corporal punishment.
  Recent legislation has forced schools to draw up lists of information about the subjects and facilities that they offer. When parents look for secondary schools to which to send their children, they have a choice—encouraged by the Government — depending on curriculum and opportunities available. The Bill might be better received if the Government allowed school governors and local
  70
  education authorities to designate some schools as corporal punishment schools and to give parents the choice of sending their children to those schools.
  Mr. David Lightbown: Does my hon. Friend agree that if his proposal were enacted it would create problems for school transport? Immediately the two-mile limit for primary schools and the three-mile limit for secondary schools were breached, parents would demand, as a statutory right, that the local education authorities provided transport. That would be an expensive alternative.
  Mr. Evennett: There are two sides to that argument. In urban areas, such as my constituency, it would not be a problem, because there are many schools in the area. However, in rural or outlying districts it could be a great problem. If we are dealing with a philosophical conviction — that the parent does not want his child to attend a school that has corporal punishment—the risk of a child having to travel a little further may be a consequence of his opting his child out of corporal punishment. It may involve additional expenditure, but if the Government believe in more choice for parents they should consider providing choice in this area.
  Opposition Members mentioned the children who attend public schools, not because their parents pay the full fees, but because they receive a grant from the Government. As we believe in excellence in education, the opportunity for children of a certain background or from a certain area to attend schools, often of academic excellence, at public expense is greatly welcome. However, if those children come within the provisions of the Bill, schools may be less keen to take them. It will cause public schools more problems, because they will be able to maintain corporal punishment, unhindered by the Bill, for those who are not on the assisted places scheme.
  I realise that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is in a difficult position, and we sympathise with him. He is obliged to introduce legislation to comply with the court's decision, and he believes the Bill to be the most practical way out of the difficulty. I understand his reservations about the alternatives, but the Bill in its present form will result in the abolition of corporal punishment by the back door. I agree completely with my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) that the Bill should be amended at a later stage.
  6.48 pm
  Mr. David Young: If I, as a teacher, had received the Bill as a submission for A-level work, I should have been tempted to write on the report, "Your son has received an excellent education from us, but it is evident that he has been educated beyond his intelligence." It worries me that we have not talked much about the children. Children will accept many forms of discipline, provided that they believe it to be fair and just, and provided that pupils in the same class do not receive different punishment for the same offence. That is the basis not only of class discrimination but of legal discrimination.
  What we should try to do in schools — I am not referring to social engineering, because I do not believe that it works — is to make each child feel when he leaves school that he will receive equal justice before the law. For children to be brought up in a society in which

  71
  the rules and regulations discriminate against them creates no basis for turning them into responsible citizens of the future. When I was a teacher I did not use corporal punishment, not because the lads tended to be bigger than I was — although that would have been a reasonable enough excuse — but because in many of our city schools lads are brought up in violent areas. One very often faced lads with whom even the police could not deal.
  My reason for not using corporal punishment was that its use meant that I should descend to the level that I condemned. If I had used the cane as a deterrent, I should have sown in the minds of those children the belief that might was right, that the guardian of the law was not the courts but the guy with the biggest fists and the most effective punch. That is the key argument for the abolition of corporal punishment. We are referring not to the occasional misdemeanour but to serious disruption. My experience was that if lads accepted corporal punishment they did not need it in the first place.
  Already a distinction is made between the punishment that is right for girls and the punishment that is right for boys. A distinction is now to be made between the parents of those boys who write to the school and those who do not. The parents who write tend to be the more articulate parents, whereas the boys who very often need help but who get the bashing have parents who do not care. They are discriminated against at home and they are then discriminated against by the first kind of authority with which they come into contact. That is no way in which to build a one-nation society.
  My condemnation of this Government's legislation is that it will create a two-nation society: the privileged and the under-privileged, the articulate and the inarticulate, those who have the resources to stand up for themselves and those who do not. That is no way in which to create a one-nation society. It will not be easy to create the kind of society that we want to create in schools. It will involve all kinds of additional resources. If the Minister wishes to create discipline in schools, by which I mean the creation of a working relationship, there must be smaller classes and more teachers and more books. However, the Minister is a wrecker. There are 1·4 million children in classes with over 30 pupils and 130,000 children in classes with over 35 pupils; 30,000 teachers have disappeared in the last four years and 20,000 teachers are due to disappear in the next two years. Again the Government are skimping on a pay claim by the teachers. The Government are creating dissatisfaction among both the pupils and the teachers whom they are there to serve and to defend.
  Mr. Lightbown: Is it not a fact that every year since the early 1970s the pupil-teacher ratios in both primary and secondary schools have improved?
  Mr. Young: No, not according to what needs to be done.
  Who else will deal with glue sniffing? The parents, the police, the courts and this House cannot deal with it. This is another among the many jobs that have to be done by teachers and social workers. Ours is the only society that seems not to recognise that the real potential of this country rests upon the education of our young people, both at school, in industry, and in our universities. Every cut slashes at the very seedcorn upon which this country depends if it is to compete with our competitors abroad.
  72
  Unless we create in our schools, because the classroom is the doorway to society, the belief that children will receive fair treatment—everybody cannot be equal but equality of treatment can be expected—and that they will not be divided from the age of five into two societies, we shall have failed in our duty to those upon whom the future of this nation rests.
  I am very sad that in legislation such as this we are pandering to the maintenance of prejudice. If children do not behave in grammar schools, they can be told to go elsewhere. Where, however, does the kid from the comprehensive go? Nobody can solve that problem. There has been a great deal of discussion about handing this question over to governors. I suppose that when we next debate capital punishment we shall ask somebody else to deal with it. One of the jobs of this House is to create a better educational environment for our kids. I hope that hon. Members will support the Opposition amendment and ensure that corporal punishment is abolished. At the end of tonight's debate I, as a constituency Member of Parliament, shall be writing to my local authority asking it to make a decision that will not divide one child in a class from his neighbour in Bolton at least.
  6.58 pm
  Mr. Warren Hawksley: I do not intend to follow the hon. Member for Bolton. South-East (Mr. Young) down the abolitionist road.
  I am glad that the debate is taking place this week. If it had taken place last week it would have been much shorter, had the powers that be had their way. It is crucial that we should have a long and full discussion on Second Reading of what I believe to be a very important Bill.
  In March 1982 I tried to raise the question of corporal punishment for young offenders by putting down a new clause to the Criminal Justice Bill. I initiated a debate that continued in Committee for 61/2 hours. The was no filibustering. It demonstrated the importance of the subject to the Committee, although one appreciates that the context was different. However, it is interesting to note that many of the arguments that are being put forward today, particularly those relating to the European Court of Human Rights, were raised then as reasons why it was not possible to consider the reintroduction of corporal punishment for young offenders.
  This Bill is not concerned with whether we should allow corporal punishment. Most people think, as do I, that it may be the beginning of the end. I regret that, although I appreciate that some Labour Members hope that that will be so.
  When I advocated corporal punishment for young offenders in 1982, I said that those of us who had had corporal punishment at school were none the worse for it. When the hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) was being questioned about his education, I was tempted to ask whether he had ever experienced corporal punishment. If he had answered that in the affirmative, I would have gone on to ask whether he thought it did him any harm. I do not believe that it does anybody any harm to be caned to a reasonable degree. I admit that we are talking of a sparing use of the cane, not of brutal attacks by teachers which would be open to action in the criminal courts.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does the hon. Gentleman feel that it does any good at all when, on occasions, pupils

  73
  tell teachers who have administered corporal punishment that it did not hurt and go off to glory, first, in that fact in front of other pupils and, secondly, in the fact that they could make such a remark to a teacher?
  Mr. Hawksley: I am sure that I always said that corporal punishment did not hurt when I was at school, but I have a funny feeling that it acted as a deterrent. I was slightly more careful next time about committing that offence. It is a deterrent. I appreciate that people may claim that corporal punishment does not hurt and may try to glory in it, but in their heart of hearts they must feel that it is a deterrent. It is a sanction which teachers should use sparingly, but which I believe strongly should be available to them to use as they think fit.
  Is the Bill before us today because the Government disagree with corporal punishment? The answer must be no. It comes about only because the European Court of Human Rights said so in the February 1982 judgment in the case of Campbell and Cosans. We should look at the judgments of the European court. Let us spread the net a little wider. Let us consider not just that case, but the case involving corporal punishment in the Isle of Man—the Tyrer case. In both those cases the British judge dissented from the judgment which went against the British interest.
  It is also interesting to note that Lord Scarman, in a judgment in another place in 1980, stressed the importance of the rule of Parliament here at Westminster. He said:
  "This House's decision, even though the European Court has held the rule it declares to be an infringement of the Convention, is the law. Our courts must continue to look, not to the European Court's decision but to the House of Lords' decision."
  Is it in our interest that we should blindly follow a court whose judgments have nothing to do with Britain's legal system and are not even arrived at by our judges? I should say no.
  Rather than push the Bill to a vote tonight, the Government should have decided to withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights. When that convention was ratified in 1951, we retained the right to decide that it was not for Britain. In view of the judgments that are coming forward, we should reconsider the situation. That, I hasten to add, has nothing to do with our membership of and responsibilities to the EEC. It concerns, purely and simply, the ratification by the Government in 1951.
  I hope that we shall consider whether we want our law to be made in this Chamber and to be enforced by British judges.
  Sir Keith Joseph: I ask my hon. Friend to bear in mind that many hon. Members had reason to welcome at least one, if not more, of the judgments of that court from which he wants us to withdraw.
  Mr. Hawksley: I think that I know what judgment my right hon. Friend is thinking about, but, on balance, the argument that we should be ruled in such matters by a court in which the British judge dissented from the judgment does not appeal to me.
  The right for teachers on the continent to be regarded as acting in loco parentis is not common. Although my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State says that we are dealing here with a small and fine point, that whole relationship will be endangered by the fact that we are prepared to go on accepting the edicts of the European Court. If that is continental practice, I fear that that will be inflicted on us. That is wrong.
  74
  Decisions on the system that we want in our schools and the relationship between teachers and the children that they are looking after should and must be made by the House and the other place.
  I shall have no option but to vote against the Labour party's amendment, which would abolish corporal punishment and therefore cannot possibly have my support; but I shall also be unable to support the Government when we vote on this important issue tonight.
  My support for corporal punishment as a sanction, and my dislike of the Europeans telling us what to do in our own country, is joined in my mind by a belief—some Opposition Members may agree with me here—that the Government's proposal to create the sheep and the goats — those children who can be caned and those who cannot—is probably the worst of both worlds.
  The teachers are right to say that the abolition of the cane will lead to problems and that increased expenditure will be necessary. That point was mentioned by the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East. To a certain extent, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State skirted round that point in his opening speech, but he accepted that some slight expenditure would be necessary. At this time, when education is having to play its part in helping the economy to get back on its feet, can we possibly accept any extra expenditure on an item such as this?
  There are some practical problems. I can imagine a situation where, a crime having been committed that deserves to be punished by the cane, the headmaster finds that of the two children involved one can be caned and the other cannot. If it is the ringleader who cannot be caned, is it fair that the minor party should be caned? It is not.
  What safeguards are there against a 15-year-old with a single parent intimidating his mother when she has to decide whether he should be exempt from punishment? When detention slips have to be returned, one sometimes hears of children forging them. What safeguards have we to prevent these forms being returned with forged signatures? Those are practical problems which must be dealt with in Committee.
  I hope that the views of the National Association of Head Teachers on retaining a list of pupils who are subject to parental exemption will be considered in Committee. What punishment will be offered as an alternative? We have heard suggestions from both sides of the House. I am slightly nervous that, at a later date, some of those may be ruled out of order by the European Court if we remain a signatory to the convention.
  Some people may have read in The Times today of the 16-year-old boy from Wirral who was suspended from school because he would not be caned and whose lawyers are claiming £17,000 in compensation for him. Will that be the first of many cases? If so, it causes me great concern. I hope that, when he replies, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will deal with the future of the European Court and how those further decisions will be arrived at. According to The Times, it is unlikely that that case will be heard by the judges. It is expected that it will end in a friendly settlement. If that is the case, will taxpayers' money be used to support the parents of that child who is making the complaint?
  Even at this late stage I hope that Ministers will think again and withdraw the Bill, go back to the Cabinet and ask it to agree to our withdrawal from the European

  75
  convention. It is important that we retain for Britain the right to make our own decisions about how we maintain law and order.
  7.10 pm
  Mr. Robert Maclennan: I find it odd that I am the sole hon. Member representing a Scottish constituency to seek to contribute to a debate that intends to amend the law of Scotland. It is odd that a proposition of this kind should not arouse the interest of either Front Bench. However, when I contemplate the reason for it a little more closely, it becomes clear that there is a certain underlying and unspoken justification for there being less interest in this debate among my Scottish colleagues than among right hon. and hon. Members representing constituencies south of the border.
  When the judgment in the Scottish case of Campbell and Cosans was handed down by the European Court of Human Rights, it was recognised in Scotland that it was giving the red light to corporal punishment. Although I am not one of the greatest admirers of the Secretary of State for Scotland and have little admiration for his political courage, on this issue at least he showed the kind of leadership that ought to have been demonstrated by the Secretary of State for Education and Science. He showed a willingness to recognise that, notwithstanding the existence of a strong body of opinion in Scotland that favoured the continuance of corporal punishment — an opinion privately shared by many teachers even though many representative bodies in education were not prepared to say so publicly—he should advise local authorities to proceed with the abolition of corporal punishment. They are in the process of doing that.
  The Bill seeks to change the law in Scotland and to introduce a number of bizarre anomalies. For example, a young person over the age of 16 in Scotland who is to be subjected to corporal punishment must himself say whether he wishes to receive it. In Scotland, the Bill in a sense will be a dead letter. I do not think that local education authorities will continue to accept that corporal punishment should have any place in the Scottish education system. That is a recognition of the practical difficulty of any other conclusion, in the light of the Campbell and Cosans case.
  It is odd that the Secretary of State for Education and Science has not been able to resolve this difficulty south of the border in the same way that his Cabinet colleague did north of the border, and I do not find what the right hon. Gentleman said about our differences of position particularly compelling. He did not specify those differences—differences of degree or of popular opinion —on the subject north and south of the border. He did not demonstrate that there was any greater use of corporal punishment south of the border than north before the Campbell and Cosans case.
  I think that the explanation lies in the natures of the two Secretaries of State. The Secretary of State for Education and Science seeks to defer to the atavistic instincts of those of his colleagues and those members of the Conservative party who wish to resist the abolition of corporal punishment at any cost. But he is signalling to his colleagues behind him that he regards this Bill as a
  76
  tiresome necessity and not as a measure which he has any great pleasure in presenting to the House. He is seeking to have it both ways.
  Mr. Forth: Will the hon. Gentleman try to be more consistent? Not too long ago, people applauded the reaction of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to what his Back Benchers were saying about student grants. Is it not consistent for my right hon. Friend to be rightly concerned about and sympathetic to what his Back Benchers may be saying in today's debate?
  Mr. Maclennan: If the right hon. Gentleman tried to follow the opinions of his Back Benchers on this issue he would be in dire difficulty. A range of opinions has been expressed which is so confusing that it cannot have given him any guidance. In those circumstances, he would have been wiser to rely upon his own judgment and not to twist like a weather vane, blown by the winds of the opinions behind him.
  Mr. David Young: That is what we are here for.
  Mr. Maclennan: If the hon. Gentleman thinks that the views of his colleague, the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Hawksley), bear the slightest resemblance to those of the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) or those of the former Solicitor-General and of any other Government supporter who has spoken, he has been only half listening to the debate.
  The Secretary of State for Education and Science would be wise to consider what has happened in Scotland since the Secretary of State for Scotland issued his advice to local education authorities, because he should recognise that there is now no significant body of opinion in favour of the reintroduction or retention of corporal punishment and that the debate in Scotland is no longer about corporal punishment in schools so much as what is to be done to maintain discipline in difficult schools in the absence of corporal punishment. That is a pressing and much-needed debate.
  It is important to consider whether teachers in areas of stress and deprivation whose pupils are unruly, unmotivated and capable of disrupting classes have adequate means of instilling discipline and the circumstances which enable the education of those who wish to have it and those who would be better for it if it were to proceed.
  Not enough thought has been given to the other available options. I had hoped to hear about them from the Secretary of State. It is clear that the majority of local authorities in England, as in Scotland, will recognise that the Bill is wholly unworkable and wholly inequitable. Their political complexion will not matter. They will proceed step by step inexorably down the road to abolition.
  Today's debate would have been altogether more constructive if the Secretary of State had addressed himself to the circumstances that are to follow abolition. Instead, he buried his head in the sand and tried to split the difference between himself and those other hon. Members who have a more realistic appraisal of what goes on in the classroom.
  I want to comment on what the hon. Member for The Wrekin said about the European Convention on Human Rights and the authority of the European Court. I have some sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's point of view that it is not wholly satisfactory for Parliament to legislate

  77
  to bring the United Kingdom into conformity with judgments reached in Strasbourg, especially when there is so much reluctance on the part of the Government even to commend the terms of the Bill.
  The route around that difficulty would be the hon. Gentleman's acceptance — as many of his hon. Friends have accepted—of the overwhelming case to incorporate the European Convention on Human Rights into our domestic law. I introduced a Bill for that purpose during the last Session of Parliament, and enjoyed the support of a considerable number of Conservative Members. I think that 137 hon. Members, many of them Conservative, supported that principle in an early-day motion.
  The hon. Gentleman is wrong to think that the principles of the convention are in any sense exotic or unsuited to this country. The convention was drafted by Englishmen in 1950 and was the product of the work of the late Lord Kilmuir, a distinguished Conservative Lord Chancellor who, at that time, was the chairman and rapporteur of the legal affairs committee of the Council of Europe on the subject of the protection of human rights. The convention was essentially a conservative measure, drawn up by lawyers well versed in the common law system and its practice. They knew what needed to be done to strengthen the protection of human rights — not abstractly in Europe as a whole, but in all the member countries of the Council of Europe.
  Mr. Forth: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the United Kingdom entered a reservation against the protocol on which this whole case is based, and that that must cast some doubt on the suggestion that, even in the 1950s, the United Kingdom gave any credence to the sort of thing that has been brought before us today?
  Mr. Maclennan: The protocols have been brought forward at different times, and different Governments have given assent on behalf of the British people. No doubt further protocols will be considered by the Government. Some protocols remain unratified by the Government.
  There is a further respect in which the Bill is defective, which is that the issue should have been faced once and for all. It is highly unsatisfactory that this country should be dragged before the European Court of Human Rights time and again on the issue of corporal punishment—or, indeed, on any of the issues that have arisen from our alleged infractions of the convention to which we are a signatory.
  In reply to my intervention earlier, the Secretary of State acknowledged that a number of cases are pending under article 3 of the convention—not under article 2 of the protocol — which may lead, in certain cases, to it being held that the corporal punishment was inhuman or degrading—
  Mr. Forth: Nonsense.
  Mr. Maclennan: The hon. Gentleman may say that, but he is not following the argument. Under the convention, it is possible that the infliction of corporal punishment in a school may be held to be inhuman and degrading. That fact was brought out not only in the Tyrer case but in the judgment on the Campbell and Cosans case.
  The court said:
  "it follows from that judgment"—
  the Tyrer case—
  "that 'treatment' itself will not be 'degrading' unless the person concerned has undergone—either in the eyes of others or in
  78
  his own eyes … humiliation or debasement attaining a minimum level of severity. That level has to be assessed with regard to the circumstance of the case."
  It is quite clear that defining, in one case, that the infliction of corporal punishment is not inhuman or degrading does not end the right of another individual to take his case to the court. It is absolutely insufferable that case after case of corporal punishment should be brought before the court with the issue being decided judicially and over a protracted period. The Government must face the issue — it is time to bring an end to that form of punishment.
  It is surely reasonable to study the experience not only of Scotland but of other European countries—on other occasions, the Government are quite ready to say, "We are culturally and socially close to them" — that have abolished corporal punishment in schools.
  If, by some mischance, the Bill is given a Second Reading—and the SDP will vote against it—it will need to be amended if it is not to lead to the most gross of inequities and the most shocking administrative difficulties for those who have to give effect to it. I cannot envisage how the Bill can be amended to make sense. Nothing that has been said tonight by any hon. Member who has supported the principle of the Bill and has wanted to follow the Secretary of State's road has altered my view on that. They have raised questions to which there are already answers. We look forward with great interest to seeing how the difficulties mentioned by Conservative Members will be taken into account. We are highly sceptical about the Bill and oppose it in principle.
  7.26 pm
  Sir. Kenneth Lewis: To cane or not to cane, that is the question—or is it? The Prime Minister is constantly saying that she does not want anything to be fudged. This issue is something which she will have to accept is being fudged—even though she is a previous Secretary of State for Education and Science. If ever there was a Bill that fudged anything, this is it.
  When I was at school, if I had been told that in 50 years I would be in the House of Commons with an opportunity to do away with caning, I would have been delighted. I would have told my chums that it could not be true, but that if it did happen it would be worth waiting for.
  This is about the daftest Bill that the House has been asked to pass. It has been imposed upon us by the European Court of Human Rights. I hope that the court realises the ridiculous position in which it is putting the Secretary of State. During the 25 years that I have been in the House I have voted on a number of daft issues produced by Governments, so I am realistic enough to say that I shall vote in favour of the Bill, in the hope that when it comes out of Committee it will be improved in some way. I keep my votes and abstentions against the Treasury Bench for those occasions, which will certainly occur during this Session, and perhaps in Sessions yet to come, when the Government are being daft in what they themselves are proposing. At the moment the Government are stuck with the Bill, so we are stuck with it and have to live with it: thanks to the European Court judgement.
  When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State introduced the Bill, he said that if he had had a choice of Bill to introduce he would not have picked this one. However, his name is at the top of the Bill, I regret to say, so he must put it through the House.

  79
  A number of ex-teachers have contributed to the debate. There are many more ex-teachers in the House than when I first entered it and some will say that that is splendid. At times the place seems full of ex-researchers, ex-teachers, ex-university lecturers and others of that ilk. That can be said of Members on both sides of the House. I would merely urge that teachers should not be allowed to sway us too far when they express their views on education, let alone on corporal punishment.
  I happen to believe that there is much merit in allowing a headmaster to use the cane on occasions when he thinks that it is proper to do so and when he has been advised by his teachers that it should be done to keep order. The procedure was quite different when I was at school. In those days, the teachers in the classrooms used the cane. They used it pretty rapidly, pretty heavily and pretty often. That has long since changed. As I understand it, there has to be a register in a school if caning is to take place, and the headmaster is usually the person who is responsible for administering corporal punishment. I believe that that is right and that some parents would prefer that system to continue. I accept that practice varies from area to area and from school to school.
  When I read the Bill for the first time, my immediate reaction was to ask myself why the matter should not be decided by parent-teacher organisations and governors. Why should there not be a democratic vote? My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is in favour of involving parents on all education issues, and I see no reason why parents should not also be involved here.
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: I am sure my hon. Friend recognises that governors of any school have the power to prevent corporal punishment being administered, by not providing a register. That is the way in which governors can exercise their jurisdiction and come to a final decision.
  Sir Kenneth Lewis: As I have said, my immediate reaction was to ask why parents should not be allowed to vote on whether a school be one where corporal punishment is allowed. However, I am told that that would not be in keeping with the terms of the European Court judgment. That being so, I presume that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State does not have the option to consult parents as a group. I hope that this matter will be thrashed out in Committee—not necessarily by me—so that we may become aware of the realities.
  Many difficulties are bound to be seen as likely to arise. The House will understand that this is an opting-out Bill. Let us suppose that a parent decides on behalf of little Johnny to opt out of the use of the cane for the boy at school and that little Johnny is doubtful about being opted out and cannot convince his mum that she should opt him in. The result will be that he is opted out. Let us suppose also that then his great friend at school, Jimmy, has been opted in by his mum. That means that he will be subject to receiving the cane. It is thus probable that little Jimmy will become the hero of the class. Little Johnny may well then tell his mother that he also wants the right to be caned if he does something naughty. He will have his eye on his friend who has become a hero, and he will want the same status. That is quite likely to happen among boys at school. So it is a difficulty that will arise because of the Bill.
  80
  If a parent decides to allow his child or children to be caned during one term, will he be able to take the opposite view during the following term?
  Sir Keith Joseph: Yes, there will be scope for parental changes of mind. A certain number of days would have to be allowed for the change of mind to be duly established on the register or removed from the register.
  Sir Kenneth Lewis: That makes the position even more difficult and confusing. There may well be a class meeting at which it is decided that all the children want to change their minds except for one or two. The pupils will then return to their parents and say, "Next year, mum, you must opt us all in for caning." The Opposition are assuming that this measure will become a non-caning Bill. I feel that it might lead eventually to the abolition of caning, but, equally, it might have the reverse effect. We do not know. Parents will be able to change their minds, and so will children, and children may press upon their parents that they should exercise their authority by agreeing with what they, the children, want.
  There has been talk of public schools. An important parent suggested recently that it was a sad state of affairs that if a parent wanted his child to be subject to corporal punishment and reasonable correction he had to put his hand in his pocket and pay for his child's education. That is no longer true. More than half of our public schools have opted out of caning. Many of the top public schools no longer use the cane. They have almost totally done away with the system of canings by prefects, and a great many have also taken away the right of masters to cane. Almost all the modern headmasters who are appointed to lead public schools are non-caners.
  I still believe that there is some merit in a headmaster having the right to administer corporal punishment in certain situations, but it might be thought that with so many opting out of caning it is no longer possible to have a division between schools which are in favour of corporal punishment and those which are not. There is also a division between parents. It would seem that the majority of parents are against the idea of corporal punishment, so it is clear that the Bill is the thin end of the wedge and that we may be moving to a general system of education that accepts that caning is out.
  In my school days there used to be a sick-note system. If Johnny was given a sick note by his parent, he would be absolved from punishment while that note was in force, and sometimes a note had effect for a long time. Now, in this Bill we have to have a letter. I shall tell a story about a famous headmaster who is now a well-known Member of this place. He is well known to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, because he was Minister of State, Department of Education and Science until a few months ago. My hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson) was a famous and effective headmaster before becoming an hon. Member. I have his permission to tell the story of what happened when there was trouble at one of the schools at which he was headmaster. Trouble was one of the things up with which he would not put.
  Headmaster Boyson found out that the trouble was being caused by one of three boys. He kept on at them, investigated the matter, plagued the life out of them and would not let up. Although he thought that one particular boy was responsible for the trouble, he was still not sure. Eventually one young chap walked into his office and

  81
  voluntarily admitted responsibility. Headmaster Boyson said, "You know that means that you have got to take your punishment—six of the best."
  It seemed to headmaster Boyson that that was the end of the matter. However, a week later he discovered that he had punished the wrong fellow. Being a fair headmaster, he asked the boy to come to his study and said, "I am sorry about that, but why did you admit responsibility?" The boy said, "You were plaguing the life out of us. We could not get rid of you, so I thought that I would admit responsibility and then it would all be over."
  Fair-minded headmaster Boyson then said, "We cannot leave it at that. We must do something about it." The boy replied that he did not know what could now be done about it. But headmaster Boyson did. He wrote out a note on a piece of paper on his desk and said to the boy, "There you are—a credit note for six of the best." The boy carried that credit note through the next two years he spent at the school.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is giving a wide range of caning credit notes in this Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North is the first hon. Member ever to have an incident at his school enshrined in legislation.
  The Bill became inevitable after the decision of the European Court. I wish those who examine it in Committee the best of luck. I do not know how it will come out of Committee, and still less how it will come out of another place. It will be fascinating to read the report of the debate there. Indeed, I hope that they are still on the television at the time of that debate so that we can watch another place debating whether to cane or not to cane.
  We could do without the Bill, but the Government had to introduce it and, because that is not their fault, I shall vote for the Bill.
  7.43 pm
  Mr. Ken Eastham: I have never heard a Secretary of State present such an unconvincing case for a Bill. The right hon. Gentleman made it clear that the Bill was being introduced only because the Government had to comply with the European Convention on Human Rights.
  The House ought to tell the Secretary of State to take the Bill back, have a fresh look at it and change the Government's thinking. Conservatives have traditionally been hangers and floggers, and they are dissatisfied with the Bill because they have always supported the physical violence attached to education. There are one or two exceptions who do not support physical violence in schools, but that is not the traditional attitude of Conservatives, and the titters of some Tory Members have been noticeable throughout the debate. One Conservative Member made the crazy suggestion that schools should be designated as beating or non-beating schools. I do not see how any sensible education authority could adopt such a policy.
  The Opposition say that the Bill is unworkable. Even a Conservative Member said that it was a muddled Bill which resulted from muddled thinking. I go further and say that it is a loony Bill. I predict that soon after it becomes an act it will have to come back to the House for amendment, because it will be seen to be so nonsensical that something will have to be done.
  Conservatives have always supported physical punishment in education. A leading Conservative politician said
  82
  that that attitude was the result of the public school and Royal Navy tradition in his party. He said that rum, sodomy and the lash were part of that tradition.
  Mr. Freud: Not at the same time.
  Mr. Eastham: No, not at the same time. The House knows what I mean.
  The boarding schools are noted for brutality, and homosexuality is common in those establishments because of the abnormal non-family life that the unfortunate children experience during their education.
  Manchester city council advises me that there is no physical punishment given in its primary or special schools and that it is rapidly dying out in secondary schools. One of the largest authorities in the country is attempting to revolutionise thinking and to concentrate more on education, which is what it is all about.
  I have always contended that teachers are not policemen. Their job is to teach, and the other side of the business should come from the parents. The parents' example is usually reflected in the children. Those from good homes usually do not need the physical violence that some parents demand that their children should receive. A councillor on Manchester's education committee once told me that West Indian parents used to say to him, "You should beat my child." I do not know what that attitude has to do with education, but it seems to be the mentality of some people.
  A friend of mine used to be the headmaster of one of the largest comprehensive schools in Manchester. He was a little Welshman, about 5 ft 3 ins tall, and he did not permit physical punishment in his school. Any new teacher was made clearly to understand that corporal punishment would not be tolerated. The discipline in that school was a good as, if not better than, discipline in most other schools in the city.
  When I was a member of the local education committee, we received reports from various high schools, and we always noted that one of the most difficult schools in the city was one where corporal punishment was known to be meted out regularly. We resolved that once the headmaster of that school retired, we would make some changes and remove some of the violence that was taking place there.
  I wrote to my Welsh friend, the little headmaster, for a considerable time, and I remember that in one letter he stated a profound truism. In effect he said, "On the day when children in any secondary school walk into the playground and tell the staff, 'We have had enough of this violence,' that is the end of physical punishment in that school." In other words, once a group of children decide that they will take corporal punishment no longer, no headmaster is able to permit physical punishment to be inflicted.
  A few teachers get some sadistic satisfaction out of the corporal punishment of children. I recall a primary school where an elderly spinster teacher was known to be a most sadistic person. Even today I think of her with fear and trepidation. She instilled in her pupils not good education: only fear. Unfortunately it is not uncommon in schools for there to be the odd teacher with a violent reputation. The sooner we can put and end to such violence, the better.
  I was worried some years ago by reports of what was occurring in some special boarding schools. I chaired meetings at which I had to discipline male teachers over

  83
  some of the thuggery—I must call it that—that they were inflicting on children in special boarding schools. Let us not forget that for those children, being in special schools, the situation was worse because the school was their home. They were at the mercy of their teachers. They were not able to go home and complain to their parents. I agree that it is rare to come across such violent teachers, but it went on in those days, when I was concerned with education committees. For that reason, I welcome the day when it will be illegal for corporal punishment to be inflicted on children.
  Parents must accept that they, too, have a responsibility for their children in school. That particularly applies to parents who object to corporal punishment. It is not good enough for them to say that discipline is the job of the teacher. Many of our problems are caused by failure not in school but at home.
  Flogging does not do anything to improve children's education. Youngsters do not learn by being afraid. Better discipline can come in a variety of ways, including better staffing, the provision of equipment, and so on. Smaller classes are vital. Imagine the problems facing a teacher trying to educate 35 or 40 children in a class. What must it be like to try to maintain mutual respect and discipline in such an environment?
  We must devote more resources to education and provide children with a challenge to learn. They will then know that the local authority and all concerned are interested in their education, and they will not become rebellious and frustrated.
  The abolition of corporal punishment does not mean a lawless school. There are other sanctions for noncompliance by children — and there is the ultimate sanction of expulsion. That final sanction was not unknown in the authority the education committee of which occupied my attention. Parents amd children can be presented with alternative sanctions so as to gain their cooperation.
  I support the call from Europe, but what makes our schools so different from those in the rest of Europe? Why should we be less able to organise our education system than, say, France, Italy and Germany? No case has been made to set us aside from the rest.
  In my experience, the teacher who is a thug is usually the most unsuccessful as a teacher. In my school days, the teacher who was a thug was always despised by the youngsters. Never to his credit could he say that he educated his pupils successfully. For those reasons, I shall oppose Second Reading of the Bill.
  7.58 pm
  Mr. David Amess: It is clear from the speeches of Opposition Members that the Bill has had the one effect so far of rekindling the cause of the abolitionists. The hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) has made his position clear on that issue. While I do not agree with him, I respect his opinion.
  The education spokesman for the Liberal party, the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Freud) told us how, because of arrangements made by his family, he was exempted from corporal punishment. That being so, I could not understand his later comments about the
  84
  Bill. I should have thought that he would wish to support a measure which would allow people to opt in and out of the system.
  Last year I found myself at odds with the Government over what was then the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Bill, a piece of legislation which I considered to be most un-Conservative in its nature. I regard this Bill in much the same light — as a surprising piece of legislation for my party to be introducing. Those two measures seem to be at odds with Conservative belief in the family and discipline. I am probably leaving myself open to being called unkind—I am prepared to take the risk—by some of my comments today.
  My right hon. Friend is doing a great deal to improve standards and widen the opportunities available for our children, and I greatly admire his efforts, but I regard this measure as nonsense and I fear that it will prove to be a great mistake. The legislation has been introduced to fulfil an obligation arising under article 2 of the first protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights. As that is clearly the case, perhaps we should be discussing that matter rather than the Bill. I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will not argue in defence of the Bill that this convention has never been broken before.
  Teachers are an important section of society, particularly in their role in influencing young people and future generations. An essential part of their job is to be responsible for teaching young people the difference between right and wrong and for maintaining discipline in our schools. We can all think of teachers who are fine academics but who are not successful in their jobs because of their inability to maintain discipline. For many teachers an essential part of their armoury is their option to use corporal punishment, and I would certainly defend that option.
  No doubt many hon. Members were on the receiving end of corporal punishment during their days at school. I went to a fairly tough school in the east end of London, where corporal punishment was administered on many occasions. I believe that in the school that I attended, and because of the circumstances under which it operated, corporal punishment was an effective deterrent, and I am not aware of any damaging psychological problems suffered by those to whom it was administered.
  Mr. Freud: Would the hon. Gentleman talk about the deterrent if some of his friends had not been punished and he had been punished? Is that not the most divisive action that could occur in a class?
  Mr. Amess: I certainly never found that to be the case when I was at school, and I am sure that it will not be the case in the future.
  When I taught I never had to administer corporal punishment, but the option was always available. My fundamental objection to the Bill is that it is unnecessary and unjust. It perpetrates and encourages injustice. One of the best definitions that I have heard states that justice is the treatment of equals equally and of unequals unequally. Our whole system of education is founded on that principle. How often have hon. Members received a reply from one of my right hon. Friends saying that an individual case must be treated on its merits? The Bill could serve as a definition of injustice — the treatment of equals unequally. What sort of justice allows two children at a school who commit the same punishable offence to be

  85
  treated differently, one receiving corporal punishment and the other, after the teacher has referred to the register, receiving detention? What sort of example does this set our young people, other than a bad example amounting to dual standards?
  There are further consequences of this court judgment about punishment. The child in detention will be held by the rest of the children to have got away with his action, while the child who is caned will suffer from the thought that she or he has been singled out for special punishment for an offence that others committed as well. Grievance and dissent will spread throughout the school, with rival parents blaming the teacher, the head and the local authority. The net effect will be the lowering of standards of discipline at a time when the teaching profession is seeking to restore those standards.
  I draw the attention of the House to the evidence given by the Assistant Masters and Mistresses Association to the Education, Science and Arts Committee, which was investigating achievement in primary schools. That evidence demonstrated the marked deterioration in children's behaviour. At the AMMA's assembly in April 1984 Mrs. Heather Ryan stated:
  "Disobedience, aggression and destructiveness are no longer the exception in classrooms or playground. Aggression includes physical and verbal abuse of peers and adults."
  I can back up that statement with hard evidence. Although primary school teachers are doing a heroic job in inducing social training, some of these children will enter secondary school in the same state and with the same attitudes. The Bill will do nothing to assist secondary school teachers in enforcing discipline; in fact, it will militate against any such discipline. The bureaucracy involved in the register will mean some delay in the traditional administration of justice in schools, and that is wrong.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Bob Dunn): At the moment, many schools have a number of nominated persons who administer corporal punishment to children who have committed a misdemeanour. Often the child is sent from the classroom to the headmaster's study, where he awaits receipt of that punishment.
  Mr. Amess: I stand corrected. My hon. Friend appears to have found a defect in my argument.
  The bureaucracy involved in compiling the register will be excessive. I am afraid that, after a time, people will become lax about registering their children on the corporal punishment list. A parent may take a particular dislike to a teacher and may be up in arms when his child is wrongly punished. We may then have a court case on our hands and bad publicity for the school.
  We have the extraordinary case of a small group of people in the schools—teachers—seizing the opportunity the Bill presents to impose their will on the majority and thus destroy any access within a school to corporal punishment. Is that right? Is it democratic? Upholding the right of one person over the right of another when both rights are equally good is the negation of justice.
  Before voting on the Bill, I must consider three views —the view of my constituents, of my party and of my conscience. In supporting this measure, I satisfy all three.
  8.7 pm
  Mr. Stan Thorne: A number of points have emerged from the decision of the European Court of
  86
  Human Rights. Are the Government concerned with conformity—with carrying out what the court believes to be right? Are the Government concerned with force —with being forced by the court to take this action? Are the Government concerned with persuasion? Each of those questions is relevant to the subject of corporal punishment.
  A long time ago, I read a book by Émile Durkheim, a sociologist. He said something of value about corporal punishment—that the punishment of children by parents is personal, but by teachers is impersonal. He came down very much on the side of those opposing the use of such punishment in schools.
  Like many hon. Members, I have direct connections with this subject. For many years I was the deputy chairman of the Liverpool education committee and chairman of the schools sub-committee. Inevitably, we had to consider whether as an authority we favoured or opposed corporal punishment. We considered that point about the time we were discussing reorganising education in the city. The National Union of Teachers made it abundantly clear that it wished to retain corporal punishment. It considered that if corporal punishment were taken away, it would be deprived of a means of maintaining discipline within the classroom.
  We decided as a committee—I accepted responsibility for a large share of this — to visit schools and examine the punishment book. An interesting point emerged from that study. In almost all the schools, when the punishment book was brought forward by the headmaster and examined day-by-day over a couple of years, it was fairly clear that there was a pattern — Johnny Smith had been punished on one day and Johnny Smith was punished a few weeks later. There were invariably no more than three or four names repeated again and again in the punishment book.
  What did the committee deduce from that? It was apparent that pupils repeated their offences and teachers repeated their punishments. The result was that there was no change in the child's behaviour. The argument that the punishment of children is an effective way to improve discipline is not proven by the evidence that I have seen within the city of Liverpool. Hon. Members may say that that is not the same in Norwich, Portsmouth, or elsewhere. I am speaking from experience. I do not believe that Liverpool is unique. A handful of repetitive punishments tends to establish that corporal punishment is not a cure for the indiscipline that exists in many of our schools.
  The debate within Liverpool took place when the committee was considering secondary school reorganisation. Two grammar schools, which were in a fairly well-placed area in terms of their intake, were being amalgamated to form one comprehensive school. The headmaster of the boys' grammar school had abolished corporal punishment several years earlier. The girls and boys grammar schools became a comprehensive school. We wondered whether the headmaster of the boys school would change his decision about punishment for indiscipline when the school had a different catchment area.
  I visited the school about seven years after it was established as a comprehensive because there was a change of headmaster. Being a governor, I took the opportunity to visit the school. When I raised this subject with the teachers, they said that they had not found it

  87
  necessary to return to any form of corporal punishment. They had disciplinary problems—no school is free of them—but they dealt with them differently.
  To pass a Bill which will result in some children in some schools being subject to punishment and other children in other schools, or in the same school, being free of it is unfortunate. It will make life extremely difficult for teachers. It may be suggested that we are interested not in teachers but in the discipline of children. That is the teachers' problem. We should be talking to teachers and to organisations such as the NUT and the Assistant Masters and Mistresses Association. If the Department of Education and Science or the Select Committee on Education and Science were to set up a thorough investigation of the problem of corporal punishment and indiscipline in schools with the right to make recommendations — as was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) when he referred to the size of classes—about the resources available for schools, the whole range of problems and how best to provide education, I suggest that we might have meaningful discussions with teachers about the problem.
  According to recent information—I shall no doubt be corrected if I am wrong — the NUT has shifted its position on this matter. Originally it was in favour of corporal punishment. I do not know why it has changed its views, but its experience over recent years probably tends to establish what I have said: that the same pupils are being punished repeatedly and it does not deter them or improve relations within the schools.
  I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for having been given the opportunity to take part in the debate.
  8.16 pm
  Mr. Robert Key: We are debating this issue not because we want to but because we have to. We should perhaps debate discipline in schools regularly. It is a great shame that the Benches are so empty, when this is an issue which must affect all of us. That the debate is taking place at all is the result of a disciplinary admonition by the European Court, which has been much referred to today. The Government have responded by producing the Bill—something which many people find unpleasant to debate.
  I had expected that hon. and learned Members would come scurrying from their courts this afternoon to tell us why we, as laymen, should throw out the Bill on some legal or constitutional ground. We might have expected some arguments from the anti-European lobby. I have other arguments in mind. We will not leave the European Community for the sake of letting some of our teachers beat other people's children. That old chestnut would be an excuse, not a reason. We could do worse than ask ourselves why discipline is better in other European schools, where no cane is employed. It might be because there is a stronger form of family discipline and responsibility, which is perhaps lost in this country. It might be something to which we should be looking in the future, rather than lamenting the passing of the cane, which I suspect will be the result of the Bill.
  As a child in the 1950s, the backs of my bare legs—short trousers of course—were hit regularly with a ruler
  88
  as an aid to learning mathematics. It was entirely counter-productive. Later, school prefects administered an automatic cumulative points system for enforcing discipline, punctuality and tidiness at school. I must admit that I failed the bed-making test. The boy who beat me is now an acclaimed film producer, and the school is all the better for having changed the system. At about the same time, my eldest brother was doing his national service. The Queen visited his barracks by train, and the day before was spent by those national servicemen sandpapering the railway lines. On the day itself, they were usefully employed painting the grass green.
  I mention these examples to illustrate two important principles. First, a sensible teacher never sees physical violence as an aid to learning, and rarely as an aid to discipline. Children whose work falls short of acceptability can usually be separated into the idle, slovenly and disobedient, and those whose academic progress needs encouragement and incentive. Secondly, though teachers of every kind and generation recognise discipline and indiscipline when they see it, the consequences and punishments, mercifully, have changed, along with the demands and perceptions of those in authority. Calls for a return to national service often come from those who remember the daily routine bounded by the automatic discipline of Queen's regulations. The services are different today, and so are the schools.
  In the 17th century Samuel Butler said:
  "Love is a boy, by poets styled;
  Then spare the rod, and spoil the child."
  We have heard about the distinction between a smack and a caning. There have been occasions when my own children have felt the physical representation of my wrath. That does not mean that I caned them, or sought corporally to punish them. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southport (Sir I. Percival) is a most gentle and distinguished Member of the House. He presented us with many arguments, but I have to say that my experience leads me to different conclusions.
  In 16 years as a schoolmaster, I only once caned a boy. It happened in my first year in the profession. That was the system. It was loathsome. It was humiliating for both of us. For the rest of my teaching career, I neither needed nor used the cane. Indeed, after I moved south of the border, I was not allowed to use it. A distinguished headmaster said to me this weekend that people who cannot control children without recourse to physical assault should be in some other business.
  Mr. Forth: I have listened to my hon. Friend's speech with rapt fascination. Does he agree that we do not in fact need any legislation? He has just given the perfect example of a system that works. Either the teacher makes his own decision whether or not corporal punishment is efficacious, or the school or the local authority does so. Why do we need legislation?
  Mr. Key: We have no option in the matter. We must produce a Bill of some sort. In my view, the Government have got it as nearly right as is possible.
  In all our best schools, whether in the maintained or the private sector, the cane is not used. Conversely, in the more difficult schools and the more deprived local communities, the cane is used more. The use of corporal punishment is an excuse for failure to attack the root causes of indiscipline. That is not a reason for continuing to support it.

  89
  I regret to say that many head teachers who say that they have not used the cane for years and would not do so will not come clean with their parents and children, on the ground that they still need to have a deterrent in the cane cupboard. That is a strange moral argument and a negative approach to discipline. A number of headmasters and teachers have begged me not to identify their schools because this is a sensitive issue. What are they afraid of?
  The Bill is so dotty that it could safely be supported by abolitionists as well as by retentionists. It is a clever Bill. It is not what it seems. However, we should not underestimate the opposition to the Bill. Of parents with children at primary school, 54 per cent. are in favour of retention. Of parents with children at secondary school, 67 per cent. favour retention. Only 36 per cent. of teachers favour abolition, against 52 per cent. who are retentionists —the majority of them women.
  Great strides are being made by the teaching profession in all areas of discipline in schools. Teachers are not helped by the silly, ideological and political excesses of local education authorities, nor by strident and negative lobbying by pressure groups. Some hon. Members still believe—basing that belief on their own school days—that there can be no discipline without corporal punishment. They should remember that they were at their secondary schools—whether in the public or the state sector— for only four or five years, some years ago, when the demands on schoolchildren were very much less and the problems facing parents and teachers were fewer. It would be encouraging to think that my hon. Friends would take note of the views of the small number of us who spent much longer in the world of schools. Parents had sufficient confidence in us then to entrust their children to us. I have tried to teach the sons of several right hon. and hon. Members, including my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, whose admirable son was a model pupil.
  It is always dangerous to judge schools today by one's own experience as a child. Indeed, I have some reservations about the Government's proposal for more parental involvement in schools. I have seen teachers' morale lowered and progress delayed, both on school governing bodies and on local education authorities, by well-intentioned but reactionary governors trying to recreate what they believe to have been the happiest days of their lives, some 30 years before. I predict that the Bill will meet opposition of that kind in the other place.
  What are the alternatives? With what could we replace corporal punishment? In the schools where, as we are told, it is used two or three times a week, it is said that the system is good for certain children, often those whose parents do not support the teachers or the schools. Where does one draw the line? Should one cane girls? Is 10 years old too young? Is 16 too old? One must draw a line somewhere. The issue cannot be fudged. Teachers who use the cane often say that it works best on pubescent 11 to 13-year-olds. However, the Secretary of State identified that group this afternoon as perhaps unsuitable for caning.
  Who still uses the cane? Is it the older teachers who have always done so? Do women teachers have more discipline problems and refer children on to senior management for a semi-automatic beating? In my experience, the best disciplined schools usually rely on a series of steps. The more steps that the teacher can apply, the better. Schools which have tried withdrawal classes for disruptive pupils have found that that is a rather doubtful
  90
  solution. Children often like being sent to a withdrawal class with other children who have offended the social code of a school. Similarly, suspension from school can be popular among the children whom it is designed to improve. More successful in my view is withdrawal of freedom and privileges in school. That can often disrupt family life and force parental attention on to the problem, and that is one of the keys to discipline.
  Another point that is often overlooked is the folly of moving teacher to pupils, rather than the other way around. I know of one teacher who, in a school of 1,700 children, taught in 11 different rooms during the week. That school had problems. The teacher is now working in another school where he has his own classroom, which he can personalise and which strengthens the bond between children and teacher. The system works. That school has fewer problems.
  We should not forget the importance of resources in schools. Staff numbers matter, not only from the point of view of supervision, but from that of the positive role of pastoral care. Many pastoral heads of year in our schools have only four periods a week for pastoral care. That is not time enough in which to deal with 180 children. Often academic teachers are rewarded with pastoral work. Both aspects of their career suffer, and so do the children.
  Those are management problems, but nothing is as important as the tripod on which successful teacher recruitment depends. An experienced teacher from a comprehensive, which is not in my constituency, told me only yesterday:
  "Two of our worst teachers are the best qualified men in the school".
  Teaching depends on three things — academic ability, aptitude to teach and attitude to education. It was never true that those who can, do and those who can't, teach. Much more should be done to encourage positive attitudes to discipline and responsibility in schools. I have mentioned a few alternatives which work, but there are many more. Much more needs to be done in teacher training and retraining. I shall never accept that there is no alternative to corporal punishment. There most certainly is, and it works.
  The hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Freud) said that there was no underlying principle to the Bill. He is wrong, because if the Bill has a principle it is a democratic one. This is the most democratic option that was open to the Government within the narrow range available. There has been a voluntary elimination of corporal punishment in Scotland. That should be a lesson to us all. The Bill is important because it means that there will be no heavy hand from Whitehall telling local education authorities what to do. Education authorities can phase out the cane, as can governors. Parents will effectively have to opt in, as far as I can understand it, if their school or authority operates a register. If parents cannot be bothered to write in, they will be opted out by default. That is a matter for debate, which we might have to consider closely in Committee. I should say that it is a matter which those who are on the Committee will have to consider carefully.
  Among the implications of maintaining a register is the time and money involved in maintaining it and the good will of teaching and non-teaching staff, which will be under additional strain. That is a valid point for the

  91
  teaching unions to argue. They are mostly abolitionists, so I am surprised that they do not support the Bill on that ground alone.
  I believe that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State means what he says about strengthening the role of parents, as is explained in his Green Paper on parental influence in schools. The Bill gives parents a choice and requires them to get appointed or elected to governing bodies if they wish their views to prevail. It also requires them to get elected as councillors and on to the local education authority to be sure of getting their views over. If there is one thing wrong with local democracy at the moment, it is that people do not take it seriously and therefore do not vote, and that the people who make the most noise do not wish to stand and take on the onerous tasks involved in being on a local authority.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State knows very well—more of us should realise it—that the Bill is not really about caning. It is about who runs the schools and the future of discipline in them. The hard-line opponents of abolition are not addressing themselves to the issues that face parents and teachers in 1985—nor are the hard-line egalitarians who insist on throwing out the baby with the bathwater by abolishing speech days, prizes and every other simple incentive to which children respond so naturally. We all respond to a mixture of sticks and carrots, and if we abolish sticks we shall need more carrots, not fewer.
  The Bill is not about beating children, but about the whole structure of discipline and responsibility in schools. It has always been clear that the Government are concerned with standards and with an extension of responsibility towards schools, teachers and parents. That is why schools now issue prospectuses, why my right hon. friend wants more parent-governors with some direct financial control and why teacher appraisal is not just about removing bad teachers but about making good teachers better.
  The Bill, expedient and dotty as it might seem, will concentrate all our minds wonderfully. I believe that we should give it a Second Reading.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before I call the next hon. Member, I should say that five hon. Members still hope to speak before the winding-up speeches start at about 9.15 pm. I appeal for brevity so that all five hon. Members can get in.
  8.33 pm
  Mr. Mark Fisher: It is a pleasure to speak after the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key). He made an excellent speech in favour of abolition and then baffled the House with a bizarre, perverse and tortuous argument in support of the Bill. If it was an attempt to get on the Front Bench, we should welcome him there, as he has sane and liberal views on discipline. He would be an embellishment to the Front Bench but I fear that it will take more than such perverse logic.
  Undoubtedly the hon. Member for Salisbury would have agreed with Roger Ascham. As a former school teacher he is probably one of the few hon. Members who knows who Roger Ascham was. He was the tutor to Queen Elizabeth I. As a former teacher, the hon. Gentleman will
  92
  probably remember Roger Ascham's work entitled "The Scholemaster", which was one of the first on educational theory. He referred to corporal punishment with an enlightened attitude for his day. He wrote:
  "Even the wisest of your great beaters do as oft punish nature as they do correct faults."
  I hope that the hon. Gentleman agrees with that. Unfortunately, we have heard a great deal of noise from Conservative Members who profess to be great beaters, but they are not among the wisest of their kind. They seem to have learnt nothing in the past 400 years. In supporting the Bill, which is an utterly ill-considered compromise and which satisfied neither them nor Opposition Members, they do no credit to their case or to the seriousness of the subject.
  When I read the Bill, I thought that there were considerable drafting problems. I am sorry to have missed the Secretary of State's speech but I gather that he gave way a good deal on the drafting implications. I also understand that he has sorted out many of them. I look forward to reading his speech tomorrow, and perhaps examining the drafting in greater detail in Committee.
  The implementation of the Bill has taxed the House. That is right, as it will create many problems, not least for children who, as many hon. Members have said, will now find that they are punished differently for the same offence. That is the worst possible example of justice and effective discipline for children. I am also worried about implementation in regard to teachers. If a head teacher is faced with two children, one of whom he is allowed to beat and the other of whom he is not, what is he to do? Should he beat one and not the other, knowing that he is behaving unfairly, unreasonably and unjustly, or should he amend the punishment for both children although his professional judgment—in my view mistaken—is that he would be correct to beat both? It is nonsense that he should change his professional judgment because the parents of one child do not want that child to be caned.
  There is also a problem with what is to go on the register. How are parents to be communicated with? I understand that the Secretary of State said that a letter would be sent home. Is it to be sent by post? That would be expensive. Moreover, what would happen if, by chance, the Royal Mail did not get through and the parents did not receive the letter?
  Mr. Freud: Nobody gets beaten.
  Mr. Fisher: On the contrary, I understand that parents have to opt out and therefore they must receive the letter and return it. The vagaries of the mail might determine whether a child is on the list. There are also difficulties associated with recording the views of parents. What happens when parents are separated or divorced or indecisive? What happens when the father takes one view and the mother takes another? What will happen with children in care?
  Mr. Dunn: When there is a divorce and parents live apart, the view of the parent who wishes the child to be exempted will prevail.
  Mr. Fisher: I am grateful to the Minister, but it would be helpful if that were made clear in the Bill. Perhaps it can be amended. The views of parents in regard to step-parents and foster parents is also a contentious isue. If the Minister wants to amend the Bill to clarify the matter, I hope that the Government will table such an amendment.

  93
  Legal responsibilities if things go wrong with the implementation of the Bill are also a vexed issue. I understand from clauses 2 and 3 that governors have the responsibility to maintain the register. Presumably, if a child is beaten in error, even if it is not the error of the governors in maintaining the register—it could be a clerical error by the school secretary —the governors will be responsible. Will a parent whose child has been beaten against his wishes and his record on the register be able to take a suit for battery against the governors? That would be a thoroughly unsatisfactory position. That is a thoroughly onerous responsibility for governing bodies, which may meet only once a term.
  The shambles comes about because of the Secretary of State's dilemma. He consulted, and more than 100 professional bodies and people responded and said that his three options were all rotten, but that this option was the most rotten and unworkable of the lot. Despite that response, he introduced this measure. That is perverse in the extreme. Conservative Members ask what else the Secretary of State can do, and argue that he is circumscribed by the European Court. That is not true. Other European countries have abolished corporal punishment. He could have taken a straightforward abolitionist line and solved his problem. Instead, he is frightened of his Back Benchers. He is wrong to be frightened of them, because he has taken the wrong decision.
  Labour Members are almost unanimously in favour of abolition, both on the principle and because it is the only effective and efficient option. Because Conservative Members, the beaters, have spent a lot of our time discussing this matter, it is important to state the principal case for abolition. Corporal punishment is beating. It is the infliction of bodily pain and the punishment of the body. It does not address the mind, which has occasioned the offence. Would Conservative Members inflict corporal punishment? As the hon. Member for Salisbury said, it is an extremely unpleasant task. I doubt whether many of them, being gentle souls despite their misguided views, would wish to do it. I doubt whether they believe in beating pets.
  Mr. Dunn: The hon. Gentleman served on a local education authority, and he speaks with vigour. Does he not think that those arguments should take place in the council chamber of a local education authority, so that others may be persuaded of the rightness of his case? The local education authority should not rely on the strong hand of central Government dictating that it should abolish corporal punishment by law.
  Mr. Fisher: That is a feeble argument. The Secretary of State is introducing a measure to change discipline in schools, and because he cannot bring himself to abolish, which he knows in heart of hearts to be right, he seeks to devolve the responsibility to local government. As the Government have a responsibility to respond to the European Court, they should abolish corporal punishment. They know that the principal argument for abolition is correct.
  I am sure that Conservative Members do not believe in beating dogs. Why then do they believe that beating children is such a good idea and so suitable? Judicial beating was abolished in 1948. The Army, showing an amazing degree of prescience and sanity, abolished
  94
  corporal punishment in 1868. Why should it still exist in schools? What is it about children that makes them susceptible to violence? Is it that Conservative Members believe that children can understand only violence, and that they cannot understand reason? That is nonsense. It is not justifiable in principle and it is not effective in practice. No schools or authorities which have abolished corporal punishment have regretted it. There is no sign that discipline in those schools is any the worse for it. Indeed, the evidence that exists, suggests that discipline improves.
  The only argument that has force— it is surprising that it has not been used — is the in loco parentis argument. One form of logic is that if parents have the right to beat children and schools are in loco parentis, schools have the right to beat children on behalf of parents. That is the logic behind the non-exemption that allows schools to continue beating pupils. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary nods as though he agrees, but it is a poor piece of logic.
  If parents hit their children, they do so in the heat of the moment, in the context of a close and, I hope, loving and complex relationship, in the confidence of knowing each other, and with an opportunity to forgive and recreate that relationship. If a child is beaten in school it is right that it should be beaten in this way — in a cool, objective judicial atmosphere, possibly by the head, whom the pupil may not even know, a long time after the event, and with no opportunity to restore the relationship. There is no similarity between the position of parents and schools.
  For schools to suggest to parents that it is intelligent to give their consent to beating, and to approve the idea of generalised consent is extremely unintelligent and unsatisfactory. Parents cannot know the context of the offence, what the alternatives were, what was passing through the mind of their child or what the position in the classroom or school was. Yet they are being asked to give generalised consent by opting on to the register for beating, or off it for being exempted. The Government should have addressed themselves to a proper structure of discipline.
  The Government should have provided an entirely new contract for teachers and children. They should have said to the education world, "We shall give you a decent context for education. We shall give you books, buildings and resources so that you as teachers can do a good job. We shall give you a good pastoral context to create good discipline in schools." The Government should have said to the children, "We shall give you a society in which it is worth being educated, worth having the prospect of a job and therefore worth behaving and getting the most from education. In return we shall expect discipline and self-discipline from all members of the school community."
  Instead, the Government have given teachers poor buildings, too few materials, too little in-service training, large classes, no supply teachers and insufficient staffing levels to maintain a good pastoral organisation. Teachers are overstretched and undervalued. Recently, the Secretary of State told them that their standards were too low and that they were failures as teachers. No wonder teachers' morale is low.
  How do pupils react in such a position? If the Government manifestly do not rate and value the teachers, why should pupils respect them? Throughout the country, pupils are looking at the estates on which they live, the

  95
  schools where they are educated, and the prospects for them when they leave school and saying, "If the Government do not rate us or teachers, why should we care or behave?" The Government have removed the carrot of the prospect of worthwhile education. Now they are removing part of the stick. The Government are inadvertently fostering any discipline problems that exist by their educational neglect. By their faulty Bill they are compounding those problems and making a bad position worse.
  The only way to achieve better discipline, better relationships and a better atmosphere in schools, is through smaller classes, a full and proper pastoral structure, and teachers with time to spare to form relationships with pupils and to know what their problems are.
  Mr. Pawsey: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the pupil-teacher ratio in our schools is at the highest level ever, and that the per capita spending is also at its best level? How does he reconcile those two points with the picture of real privation that he paints? That is not the case. Unfortunately, and I am sure unintentionally, the hon. Gentleman is misleading the House with his 18th-century description of education.
  Mr. Fisher: The hon. Gentleman referred to the highest pupil-teacher ratio, when he meant the lowest pupil-teacher ratio. It has undoubtedly come down, but like all those who read much and understand little about education, he does not understand the difference between pupil-teacher ratios and class sizes. Classes are extremely large. As pastoral roles have improved and developed in schools from a rudimentary start 10 years ago, class sizes have not improved to reflect the undoubted improvement in the pupil-teacher ratio. If the hon. Gentleman doubts my description of low morale in schools, he should visit the schools in his constituency and ask teachers whether they believe that the Government value them, and whether their morale is high or low. He will obtain only one answer: that morale is low because teachers feel neglected. If they feel neglected, so do pupils.
  The only way to achieve discipline is to have a better atmosphere, smaller classes and pupils who believe that education is worth while. That will come, but certainly not from this Government. It will come only from a Government who have a vision of education and who care about the future of children. Only in that context can good discipline be fostered.
  8.50 pm
  Mr. J. F. Pawsey: I hope that hon. Members will forgive me if I do not follow the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) too far down the road that he signposted. Since he talked about my constituency, I should tell him that, perhaps unlike him, I take the trouble to visit the schools in my constituency regularly. I visit most schools at least once every two years, so I have a good idea of what happens in schools. Teacher morale is not as low as the hon. Gentleman would have us believe. Generally, teachers appreciate what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is doing—for example, with teacher assessment.
  The hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) said that the Bill was unworkable, but, in the immortal words
  96
  of Mandy Rice-Davies, "He would, wouldn't he?" He is an outspoken abolitionist, so clearly nothing in the Bill commends itself to him. Therefore, most of his speech should be dismissed for what it was.
  Mr. Radice: Do not consider the argument.
  Mr. Pawsey: The argument was persuasive, but unfortunately the hon. Gentleman had not bent his mind to it. He usually contributes much to our debates, but on this occasion his intellect was not focused on the problem before the House.
  When considering the Bill, my worst prejudices about Europe come to the surface. The judgment by the European Court of Human Rights has helped neither Britain nor the House. We have been making our own laws for hundreds of years without the benefit of European advice and interference, and our laws reflect our customs and our traditions. The latter are not always those of France, Italy or Belgium. However, the United Kingdom has signed the European convention on human rights, and it must abide by the consequences of that signing.
  The Bill sets out to meet the requirements of the European Court and to make the best of a bad decision. The decision was made not by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, nor by the Government, but by European judges. The only alternative to this Bill is the complete abolition of corporal punishment, which is clearly unacceptable to the majority of hon. Members. No doubt we shall see after the Division this evening who is right on that point, as on all the other points that we have discussed.
  Mr. Ian Grist: Does my hon. Friend agree that it would have been better to have not a whipped vote but a plain statement of the opinions of hon. Members?
  Mr. Pawsey: My hon. Friend knows as well as I do that, sadly, it is sometimes thought necessary to impose disciplines on hon. Members, in the same way as we seek to impose them on others outside.
  The alternative to the Bill is the total abolition of corporal punishment, which I believe would be a retrograde step. It would not endear us to parents or teachers, and it would leave schools without one of their principal deterrents — a deterrent that helps to counter defiance. Opposition Members have not said what they would put in place of corporal punishment. They have tried, but they have not proved their case. Until they do so, and provide a viable alternative to corporal punishment, the status quo should remain.
  It is not necessary for the cane to be often used and, as I know, it is hardly ever used in the best schools. The knowledge that it exists is usually sufficient. We have heard the argument this evening that what is good enough for European countries should be good enough for us. Hon. Members have said that if European states can manage without corporal punishment, why should not Britain? That is a short-sighted argument that does not take into account the fact that, in the United Kingdom, the teacher is in loco parentis. That is not understood in Europe, and that is one reason why the European Court's judgment was in error. The court did not appreciate the basic point that, in Britain, the teacher stands in for the parent.
  In the United Kingdom, the cane is the traditional punishment for misdemeanours. In many European

  97
  countries, the punishment is suspension or detention. In France, if a child is suspended for poor attendance at school, the social security benefits that they would normally attract are also suspended for that period. The punishment affects not only the child, but the rest of his family. Do hon. Members put that forward as a viable alternative? Of course not, because it would be impossible to introduce. In eastern Europe, the child's misdemeanours are posted on the notice board of the factory in which his father works. One can imagine the outcry, especially from Opposition Members, if we suggested using that method in the United Kingdom.
  Sovereign nations have evolved methods of maintaining discipline in schools, and the United Kingdom has evolved its method—
  Mr. Fisher: Beatings.
  Mr. Pawsey: No, not beatings. That is an emotive word. The hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that the usual terminology is "caning". I noted that during his speech he did not use the word "caning". It was either a mistake or a deliberate attempt to mislead the House into believing that most schools administer the sort of treatment that he may have experienced at his school.
  Opposition Members have not suggested a punishment that would provide an effective deterrent in place of corporal punishment.
  Parents need to understand that if corporal punishment is abolished and their child misbehaves, he will probably receive more detentions and a greater loss of privileges. In severe cases, that may result in positive suspension from school. When parents know that those are the alternatives, I believe that they will decide that corporal punishment is the lesser evil.
  If, for example, in country areas a child is put into detention, it may mean that he misses the school bus home. In many country areas the only bus to get the child home is the school bus. Such punishment would undoubtedly exceed that of corporal punishment were it to be used in country schools.
  We should not seek to minimise the difficulties created for head teachers by the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights. I appreciate the difficulties surrounding the need to record the names of those who can be caned, but I do not believe that they should be overstated. When one considers the alternatives, I believe that, problems or no problems, we should support the Bill. I believe that parents will decide not to opt out of the system. Because they will recognise the clear need to maintain school discipline, I believe that parents will co-operate with head teachers and teachers. In view of the increase in parental choice that the Bill provides, I believe that parents will opt in. I further believe that my right hon. and hon. Friends have tried and, in general, succeeded in salvaging a working measure from the wreck of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights.
  9.1 pm
  Mr. Sean Hughes: If the debate has served one purpose, it has emphasised the fact that the sooner the House of Commons is televised the better. The country will then have an opportunity to watch and listen to some of the antediluvian arguments which are put forward by Conservative Members.
  The hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Hawksley) said that this is a very important Bill. I believe that it is trivial
  98
  in the extreme, compared with the real needs of education. Some Conservative Members are obsessed by such punitive issues as this. I believe that they are totally irrelevant to educational problems and that it is one of the most negative ways of looking at education, its development and its problems. Having listened to Conservative Members, with the honourable exception of the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), one would think that the use of the cane and the strap is crucial to the maintenance of standards and discipline. What utter nonsense. Of course the Bill has been forced upon us by the decision of the European Court of Human Rights. However, as my hon. Friend the Minister for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) said, it should have been used as an opportunity to get rid of an uncivilised, punitive irrelevance.
  To put my comments in perspective, I could never be considered to be a trendy, middle-class ex-teacher. I believe very much in educational standards and quality. I am consious of how a deprived environment distorts educational aims. The hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) asked us to consider the plight of the harassed teacher in a deprived area. I suggest the cane is not the way in which to overcome deprivation. I taught for 13 years in one of our most deprived areas. I noted that the hon. Member for Ealing, North suggested that the hon. Member for Cambridge, North-East (Mr. Freud) should spend a few years in the classroom of a large comprehensive school. That is what I did. It was an area of massive youth unemployment, whose educational ethos was non-existent, but the school in which I taught did not practise corporal punishment. That experience over 13 years taught me that one cannot whack excellence into children, or beat them into examination success or cane them into discipline.
  I do not want to exaggerate the incidence or extent of corporal punishment. Indeed, I am not very convinced by some of the sociological arguments against corporal punishment, although I accept that corporal punishment might cause psychological damage to children. I simply do not know whether the occasional whack promotes in a child the belief that might is right. In my case it did precisely the opposite. However, I accept that the worst schools overuse corporal punishment and that it adds to an atmosphere of violence. I accept equally, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) mentioned, that when he is at the end of his tether even the most civilised, rational, decent-minded teacher can be goaded into contemplating meting out a good hiding to somebody.
  Although I accept that the environment distorts educational achievement and behaviour, I accept, too, the concept of original sin.
  Why then do I oppose corporal punishment? It is simply because the sight of a 40-year-old man hitting with a stick the outstretched hand of a 12-year-old boy is distinctly distasteful and wholly unnecessary. Conservative Members have said that it is a deterrent. All the evidence points to the fact that it is the same child who is repeatedly beaten, caned or strapped, as my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mr. Thorne) said. Either that means that, apparently like some Conservative Members, they like it, or that it is not a deterrent.
  I am opposed to corporal punishment because I hold it to be uncivilised. My experience tells me that it is unnecessary. It distracts us, as it has done today, from

  99
  debating the real reasons for educational deprivation and inequality. That is why I hope that the House will support the Opposition amendment.
  9.5 pm
  Mr. Eric Forth: Unfortunately, I must restrict my comments severely because of the hour, but I want to put forward an argument that we have not yet heard. I want to return to the genesis of this measure and to see why it is that what we are told is inevitable is not so at all.
  Let us go back to the original debate in the Council of Europe in 1951 when the origin of this measure was considered. We have been told repeatedly that the people who wrote the European convention on human rights and the protocol on which it is based had in mind corporal punishment and its effect on children. Nothing could be further from the truth.
  I wish to quote the words of Mr. Teitgen, the rapporteur in the Council of Europe at the time. He said:
  "it is essential for our Protocol to protect the rights of parents in the field of education and teaching against the danger of nationalisation, absorption, monopolisation, requisitioning of young people by the State".
  In other words, the intention of the original protocol to the convention had nothing whatever to do with corporal punishment in schools; it concerned the post-war context and the fear of the then generation of undue political influence in the educational process.
  That is bad enough. It is also relevant that even then, and in the light of that, the United Kingdom entered a reservation to the protocol on which the judgment is based, distancing itself from the protocol as then expressed and using such vague and rather difficult words as "philosophical conviction".
  On the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights we have the excellent dissenting opinion of Sir Vincent Evans, the British judge in that court. He said that the original aim, as I have set it out, and as the words of the rapporteur suggest, give no basis for the judgment which was passed down by the court against his dissenting opinion.
  The way in which our continental friends conduct their legal proceedings takes no account of the original intention of those who pass the law. They feel free to graft on to that law a meaning which may suit them at the time. Therefore, 30 years after the original passing of the convention and the protocol we find a judgment by the court which bears no relationship to the circumstances of the 1980s.
  It is for that reason that I believe the oft-quoted convention and protocol, as laid before us, do not have the strength, relevance or directness which have been suggested to us over and over again during the debate. Therefore, we are entitled to decline to accept the solution that has been offered to us and that has been so rightly criticised on both sides of the House. We are right in asking the Government to think again, probably at great length, and possibly to return with another half-baked solution. In other words, we should have time to reconsider whether we should have anything to do with the European convention on human rights, which was created 30 years ago in such different circumstances; to reconsider whether we should still be signatories to and supporters of the protocol which was based on a different time and in
  100
  different circumstances; and to reconsider whether Britain should allow itself to be subject constantly to interpretations and reinterpretations of conventions and protocols—116 of them—which have been cumulatively created by the Council of Europe over the years.
  It is for that reason, and that reason principally, that I shall be unable to support the Government in what they have brought before us today. I look forward to the day when we seriously reconsider our membership of the Council of Europe and our adherence to the European convention on human rights in order that we may obviate and eliminate the repetition of an unfortunate case such as we have before us this evening.
  9.10 pm
  Mr. Humfrey Malins: This has been a long debate, but I am reminded of the words of an old schoolmaster friend of mine, Mr. Tom Peacocke, who said:
  "For the boy, the stick. For the politician, the red hot poker." I think that he had it right on one count at least.
  Unfortunately, the Bill falls between two stools. It introduces for the first time a two-tier system and, in trying to please everyone, I suspect that the Government are likely to end up pleasing no one.
  The argument is not about the merits or otherwise of corporal punishment. I support corporal punishment, provided that it is used appropriately, and I believe that my view is widely shared. As a punishment it has the merits of being immediate, quickly over with and easily associated with the offence, and in many cases it is far less damaging to the pupil than its logical alternatives of expulsion or suspension. Those latter punishments often cause long-term resentment in children and long-term damage to a child's education, since they may interfere with examinations. Apart from all else, when a school suspends or expels a pupil, it is an admission of failure by the school. In the borough of Croydon, we tend to suspend some 300 pupils per year, often for long periods, with resultant disruption to their education and family life.
  There are a number of problems with the Bill. First, it appears that either parent has a right to object to corporal punishment. One parent may be strongly in favour, the other may be against. The "against" view will prevail, which may cause rifts and divisions in the family.
  The situation could arise where a parent objected to corporal punishment for one of his two children but not for the other. That could only result in divisions between children in the same home.
  At the school, for an identical offence two children might be punished in different ways. Is that not bound to cause divisions between children and between staff at the school?
  Given that public and parental opinion can change, the possibility is there of a child being subject to corporal punishment or not, as the case may be, at different stages in his education.
  The message is clear. A two-tier system of punishment is divisive both within the school and within the family. Children respect principles of certainty, consistency and, above all, equality of treatment. Passing the Bill opens the way to enormous divisions and resentments when those well-established principles are breached.
  The extraordinary picture emerges of two children, perhaps the best of friends, starting together on the same day at the same school. From the moment that they enter

  101
  the school gates together, they are subject to wholly different regimes. In punishment, the word "choice" does not seem to be wholly relevant. There is much more merit in the word "consistency".
  I put a few short points to the Minister. There is reference in the Bill to "a parent". Who is a parent? Does a divorced parent qualify? Even though he has no rights of access to or custody of the child, can he exempt a child of his from corporal punishment? If a child is in care, does the local authority make the decision, or does the parent or either parent make the decision? If a child is subject to a supervision order, is the position different from that of a child under a care order? Who carries the can? Who makes the decision? We have not heard about these matters, and I hope that we shall do so before the debate ends.
  I am sure that no hon. Member has ever had any difficulty in distinguishing between the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, established by the convention, and the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg, established by the Treaty of Rome. However, for understandable reasons, the two courts are inevitably confused.
  Many people will think that the Bill is being foisted on us by the EEC, which it is not. Even the Daily Telegraph political staff slipped into that error last Wednesday when it said that the deferment of the Bill had averted a second rebellion over the EEC. We must distinguish between the two courts. It is not an EEC matter that is being foisted upon us.
  We must recognise that a large number of people in Britain are beginning to resent some of the interference from the Court of Human Rights. We are beginning to feel that these are matters that we can best deal with ourselves. We do not have a great deal to learn about human rights from a number of the signatories to the convention. A bill of rights for us and a withdrawal from the convention are matters for another day.
  9.15 pm
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: The Government have been on a hiding to nothing in this debate, and there has been very little support for them. Even the Secretary of State did not really recommend the Bill to the House with great enthusiasm; he was obviously only too well aware of the many internal inconsistencies in it. He found little support on the Conservative Benches. At best, Conservative Members said that they would support it because it is making the best of a bad job.
  I used to be a teacher and I now regret that I sometimes inflicted corporal punishment at one or two schools, where the ethos expected it of teachers. I always felt ashamed when I caned a pupil. I also felt that somehow I had failed to carry out my duties as an effective teacher. Equally, as a school governor, I was responsible on one occasion for pressing very hard and successfully for a teacher to be appointed particularly and specifically to reduce the amount of corporal punishment in that school. The level of violence in that school was unacceptably high. Unfortunately, the teacher turned out to be disastrous, which was unfortunate for him and the school.
  I have no illusions that getting rid of corporal punishment in any school is an easy task. It must be done over a period, especially where a school has consistently relied upon it. I also believe that we cannot effectively teach in an atmosphere of fear. Conservative Members
  102
  who have spoken about deterrence are really saying that schools should work through an atmosphere of fear. It is essential that we get rid of that element from our educational system.
  We must remember that one of the key features of education is teaching young people self-discipline. The approach of many head teachers, teachers and local authorities who have set deadlines of six or 12 months for the ending of corporal punishment is the correct way to tackle the problem. The Secretary of State for Scotland gave a good and effective lead when he suggested that all local authorities should aim to phase out corporal punishment within 12 months. It is commendable that all but two regions in Scotland are moving in that direction. The reality is that in the two regions which, apparently, will try to retain corporal punishment, the number of children who are caned or strapped is extremely small.
  We must measure the Bill against that background. It is a tragic missed opportunity because it fails to abolish corporal punishment and to make positive proposals for improving school discipline. Shortly before Christmas the Opposition suggested that the Bill should be subject to the Special Standing Committee procedure so that Parliament could have an opportunity to discuss school discipline, find ways to deal with the problems created by the court's judgment and come forward with positive proposals to incorporate in our legislation. It is sad that the Government refused. No doubt they anticipated trouble with Conservative Back Benchers.
  The Secretary of State talks almost continually about wanting to raise standards in schools, and one of the keys to high standards in good behaviour. The right hon. Gentleman should have sought by means of the Bill to give schools positive help in achieving good behaviour. Instead, he has offered them muddle and compromise. The Bill does nothing to help schools improve the discipline of pupils.
  At the very beginning of the debate I pressed the Secretary of State to tell the House which parent would have overriding responsibility. The Bill does not tell us which parent will have the right to decide if two parents have different views. The Minister has said in an intervention that that issue will be dealt with in the regulations. That may be, but unfortunately the Bill does not give the right to one parent or the other. If, as the Secretary of State said earlier, the one parent who wants to opt out of corporal punishment for the child will have the right to do so, how will this be done? The right is not set out in the Bill and it seems that this issue will have to be dealt with in the regulations. That is unsatisfactory.
  The Secretary of State said that he had a relaxed view about who should count as a parent. I think that the Bill should have referred to parents or guardians. That is the term that is used in much of our family legislation. It is not especially appropriate to lay down who will have responsibility for carrying out this parental right only in the regulations. It would be far better to set it out clearly in the Bill in order to make it clear that responsibility lies with the parent or guardian. As the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Matins) said, we need to know the position of the child who is in care, for example.
  We have heard during the debate about the opt-out procedure. It has been put to me by several people in education offices that the procedure that is set out in the Bill is the most difficult one to administer. It relies on a letter being sent from the school to the parent. It relies also

  103
  on an assumption that the parent receives and understands the letter. The Secretary of State has told us that if necessary the school will send a second letter, but we all know that in practice some children move from one household to another. Sometimes they are looked after by a granny, sometimes by an aunt, sometimes by one parent and sometimes by the other. In these circumstances it will not be particularly easy to establish in a court of law that a letter was sent by the local authority to the parent.
  Another issue will be whether the letter has been returned by the parent. The pupil concerned may insist that the letter was handed in at the school office. How will the school office record that the letter is with it? It has been put to me by those who are involved in education administration that it would be much better to have the alternative system which would require the school to have in its possession a letter that states, "I am the parent of X and I agree to corporal punishment being administered to my child if it is necessary." The Minister must address himself to these practical issues. I understand the political reasons that led him to go for the opt-out system but in administrative terms the opt-in system is much more positive and easier to deal with by the authorities.
  Mr. Freud: I have been following closely the hon. Gentleman's remarks. Surely an opt-in system would mean opting in by both parents, step-parents, guardians and aunts and grandparents where necessary.
  Mr. Bennett: I accept that argument. I do not want to spend too long trying to improve the Bill. However, I have some sympathy for the local authorities which will have to administer a measure that will cause them problems. I is a measure that the Minister should not have introduced.
  I wish that the Secretary of State had dealt more fully with suspensions. It is disturbing that many local authorities and school governing bodies have gone increasingly for suspensions. This seems to be a development within the education world and is not the result of the phasing out of corporal punishment. Several Conservative Members expressed the fear that considerable harm could be caused to children who are kept out of school for long periods as s result of suspensions.
  The Government argue that the Opposition should not oppose the Bill because we favour giving powers to local authorities. The Government claim honour for the fact that they are returning power to local authorities, schools and parents. We would have more sympathy with that argument if the Government were prepared to allow local authorities to have control over their own finances. But the Government say to local authorities that they are taking away control over expenditure and other important matters and giving back only the small right to make decisions on such matters as corporal punishment. I welcome the support of the Liberal party and the SDP for our reasoned amendment.
  The hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) misrepresented the National Association of Schoolmasters/Union of Women Teachers when he said that it did not object to the Bill. The union favours corporal punishment, but it objects to the Bill. It is one of the many groups involved in teaching that feel that the legislation is unworkable.
  Mr. Greenway: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Bennett: No. The hon. Gentleman would not give way. He said that he favoured corporal punishment because it was quick. In most secondary schools and in many junior schools it is no longer quick. There is almost always a member of staff designated as the person to administer corporal punishment. In mixed schools, punishments for boys and for girls are administered by different people. The member of staff has to be found and usually wants an explanation of why corporal punishment is to be administered before even considering it. In many instances, it is a long-drawn-out process. The hon. Gentleman should reconsider his view.
  Mr. Greenway: In my experience, corporal punishment is very quick. However, that was not the defence that I advanced. I said that it was a suitable deterrent and punishment for grossly serious crimes, such as bullying and some forms of vandalism. I said that the National Association of Schoolmasters/Union of Women Teachers supported corporal punishment. I did not mention its position on the Bill.
  Mr. Bennett: I am sure that in practice corporal punishment is not quick. If it were such a good deterrent, we would not have the problems of bullying and bad behaviour.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) made the valid point, echoed by other hon. Members, that we should look at the experience of other countries. No one has suggested that discipline in European schools is a major problem because they do not have corporal punishment. Discipline in almost all the other countries of Europe is as good as, if not better than, the discipline in our schools, even though there is no corporal punishment in those countries.
  The hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) mentioned the sanctions that were available in France and some other countries. I am told that the withdrawal of social security benefit because of a child's non-attendance at school is a rarely used sanction in France.
  Mr. Pawsey: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, even if it is used rarely, the threat exists, so the deterrent effect is the same as that of the cane being available in schools? The cane may not be used frequently, but the fact that it is available puts children off. They will behave.
  Mr. Bennett: That is a doubtful argument. On the whole, deterrents which are not used fall into disrepute.
  The hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Evennett) suggested a system under which one school would practise corporal punishment and another would not. Probably all hon. Members accept that that would not be a practical solution. There are already too many problems when parents want to choose between schools and we find that what they want does not fit in with what is available.
  The hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Hawksley) expressed great enthusiasm for the deterrent—he spoke of his school days — and suggested that corporal punishment had not done him any harm. Presumably it did not deter him, either. I suggest that he defeated his own argument.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Mr. Young) was rightly concerned about the way in which pupils would perceive the situation, and he

  105
  questioned whether they would think the arrangement fair—a point echoed by almost all hon. Members. Two pupils involved in the same offence would not feel it fair if one was punished in one way and the other was punished in another. Several hon. Members pointed out that, even worse, two pupils involved in the same type of offence might find that the one who had committed the least serious aspect of the offence was subject to corporal punishment and the other not. That would be seen by pupils as unfair.
  The hon. Member for Stamford and Spalding (Sir K. Lewis) pointed out that more than half the public schools, the better ones, had already abolished corporal punishment.
  The hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) referred to injustice resulting from different treatment. He should reflect on the situation that would be created if, for an offence, one pupil got one type of punishment and a second received the cane. Both would feel that injustice had occurred. But mistakes are made in schools, and it might be discovered later that neither pupil should have been punished. One of the two may have been given detention or some other punishment which had not yet been inflicted, but little could be done about the pupil who had already been caned. Thus, great resentment could arise.
  The speech of the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) came as a breath of fresh air and enlightenment from the Government Benches. He probably summed the Bill up best when he said that it was so dotty that it could enjoy support from hon. Members on both sides of the House. Conservative Members who take the trouble to read his speech will note with interest his account of the well-run school in which corporal punishment is unnecessary. That is the type of school for which we should be striving. It is regrettable that the Bill will do little positive in that direction. Rather, it will help to produce a bureaucratic nightmare.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) spoke of the problems and cost involved in writing to parents. He also spoke of the errors that can occur. Mistakes also arise because several pupils on the register can have the same or similar names. It is not too difficult to avoid confusing, say, two John Smiths. One is aware of Smith being a common name; hence, the teacher is wary of making mistakes. But it is surprising how often quite uncommon names crop up and there are two children with the same name.
  Are we to have "John Smith the cane" and "John Smith the detention" as the names by which teachers remember which boy is which? I suggest that the possibility of error will be horrendous and that, in practice, the majority of schools will decide to abolish corporal punishment rather then get involved with that type of bureaucracy.
  The Government should take this measure away and go to the local authorities and say, "We want you to get a debate going in your area so that we can establish a framework for discipline by which parents and schools are clear about their roles when trying to ensure good discipline." Teachers should examine the alternatives to corporal punishment. There should be debate on how the schools administer those alternatives, the role of suspension in schools and, if a pupil is suspended by the school, the duty of local authorities to ensure that, after
  106
  a short period, the child is found another school to attend. In some authorities pupils remain suspended for a term or more, and that is most unsatisfactory.
  We need much more discussion between local authorities about the implication of withdrawal groups in schools and what happens if a local authority creates what one might call "sin bin" schools. What are the implications for Warnock-type integration if we try to integrate children from maladjusted schools into other schools? What are the implications of excluding pupils for punishment reasons?
  I suggest to the Government that they advise local authorities to address themselves to the question of how to create an atmosphere in all their schools where self-discipline prevails, where good behaviour is the order of the day and where all teachers and senior staff need to spend little time in enforcing discipline. That has already been achieved in a few schools, but it needs to be achieved in all our schools. The Bill does nothing to achieve that end. The Government should take the legislation away and bring forward proposals to abolish corporal punishment and to create a positive framework within which good discipline can evolve in our schools.
  9.35 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Bob Dunn): We have had a long debate on a difficult subject. We have heard speeches from my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southport (Sir I. Percival), my hon. Friends the Members for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway), for Frith and Crayford (Mr. Evennett), for The Wrekin (Mr. Hawksley), for Stamford and Spalding (Sir K. Lewis), for Basildon (Mr. Amess), for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey), for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) and for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Malins), and by the hon. Members for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Freud), for Bolton, South-East (Mr. Young), for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), for Manchester, 13 lacicley (Mr. Eastham), for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery), for Preston (Mr. Thorne), for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher), and for Knowsley, South (Mr. Hughes). In the time available to me I shall attempt to deal with the points of substance and political dogma, and I undertake to write to those hon. Members whose points I cannot answer now.
  The House will know that I have looked forward to this debate since the Queen's Speech last November. In recent weeks, the words of George Canning have gone through my mind. He said:
  "Give me the avowed, the erect, the manly foe;
  Bold I can meet—perhaps may turn his blow;
  But of all plagues, good Heaven, thy wrath can send,
  Save, save, oh! save me from the Candid Friend!"
  But I had no need to quote those words tonight because this debate has been amiable, good natured, cheerful and enthralling. It has been a debate on a serious and difficult subject, and the Government have faced a dilemma.
  The debate has been good natured, except for the contribution by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central who overstated his case by the language he used and the intemperance he brought to it. One had the idea that Wackford Squeers had not died 100 years ago, but was alive and well and replicated throughout our education system. The draconian and irresolute picture painted by the hon. Gentleman is not one of fact today.
  Some Opposition Members have accused us of bringing forward a Bill which is not based on any principle. That

  107
  was referred to in a most elegant speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key). The Bill is based upon a principle which should unite every Member of the House — the principle that local education authorities should decide whether to permit the application of corporal punishment in their schools, and those local authorities that so decide will allow school governors and parents to decide the matter in each school.
  If any parent wishes to have his or her child exempted from corporal punishment, he has the right to seek that objective. We have debated this subject in the knowledge that some of the views expressed have been at odds with the views of the people we represent. I am convinced that if I were to have an opinion poll in any part of my constituency, I should find that the vast majority of my constituents are in favour of the retention of corporal punishment in schools, as are those represented by Members on both sides of the House.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Has the Minister asked the GLC?
  Mr. Dunn: The hon. Gentleman brings a peculiar affectation to our debate. I always think that he has the fervour of a poodle dog attempting to seduce a wellington boot. If he is to learn from my answers, he should remain silent for a little longer.
  The Daily Telegraph, in its column written by John Izbicki, pointed out that a Gallup poll showed that 69 per cent. of the people polled believed that discipline had become worse in our schools; 19 per cent. thought that it was about the same; and only 3 per cent. thought that it had improved. That is the background to the debate and the Second Reading that we shall undoubtedly give to the Bill.
  Mr. Forth: Does not the point that my hon. Friend has made reinforce the fact that the European Court of Human Rights in its judgment is as far from the opinion of the people of this country as many of us have suggested? Is that not the problem that the Government have had to face? How does he relate the results of the opinion poll that he has given with the court's judgment?
  Mr. Dunn: I do not intend to do so tonight, if my hon. Friend will forgive me. I am sure that his remarks about the European Court of Human Rights will be noted by my right hon. and hon. Friends who have responsibility for those matters.
  Mr. Fisher: We are overcome by the Under-Secretary's theatrical and seductive winks to the Opposition Front Bench. When he is taking these straw polls in his constituency, does he consult teachers and head teachers? Will he confirm that the vast majority of those whom he is expecting to administer corporal punishment are against the Bill?
  Mr. Dunn: If I thought that were the case, I should be the first to admit it. The hon. Member has known me long enough to accept that. I am conscious that last year a sample poll mounted by NOP for The Times Educational Supplement showed 52 per cent. of teachers interviewed to be in favour of retention, compared with 36 per cent. in favour of abolition. In the north, and the midlands where the hon. Member has his constituency, the comparative figures were 64 per cent. and 27 per cent.
  Mr. Radice: Is any teachers' trade union in favour of the Bill?
  Mr. Dunn: I dare say that if I researched for long enough, I might find one. However, the question that the hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) should address is whether those trade union leaders are acting in the interests of the members they purport to represent. Probably they are not doing so.
  The Bill is before the House because of a judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Campbell and Cosans. We cannot accept some judgments and discard others, picking and choosing between those that we like and those that we do not like. The case was vigorously defended by the United Kingdom, but the judgment went against us. We have an obligation to abide by the judgment of the court, and that obligation will be fulfilled by the scheme that the Bill introduces. Failure to act would place us in breach of a treaty obligation and expose us to the possibility of a succession of cases under the European convention on human rights and the further possibility of compensation awards.
  Mr. Silvester: I am sorry to give my hon. Friend such cause for pause, but if he feels that we are under an obligation, are not the Government also under an obligation—before we commit ourselves to a Bill which my hon. Friend has hardly defended with vigour—to provide time for the House, for the first time in history, to make a judgment on whether we wish the European Court of Human Rights to operate in that way?
  Mr. Dunn: My responsibility tonight is to steer the Second Reading debate to a satisfactory conclusion. The matters to which my hon. Friend refers are for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, whose attention to such matters is known to all.
  We cannot pick and choose between judgments, and we must act to give effect to the ruling. Our obligations on the matter date back to 1951, when the Government of the day accepted the court's jurisdiction in cases brought by another state in which the prior agreement of this country had been obtained. In 1966, the Labour Government accepted the right of individuals to make complaints under the convention. That acceptance has been renewed by successive Governments. The latest renewal was in January 1981 and was to last for five years. Consequently, we must give effect to the ruling.
  Mr. John Home Robertson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Dunn: I do not have much time. I apologise to the hon. Gentleman.
  The Opposition parties would have preferred our action to take the form of abolishing corporal punishment. Opposition Members who have spoken tonight appear to be united in their determination to abolish corporal punishment, whether they belong to the Labour party, the Liberal party or the Social Democratic party.
  Mr. Maclennan: Will the hon. Gentleman explain why no Scottish Minister has participated in the debate, even though the Bill applies to Scotland? Am I right in saying that Scottish Ministers are in total disagreement with the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend, believing that corporal punishment should be abolished — advice that they have already given to local authorities?
  Mr. Dunn: The hon. Gentleman is churlish. We have been supported throughout the debate by a representative of the Scottish Office.
  Mr. David Young: Can the Minister name any education authority which supports the educational apartheid proposed in the Bill?
  Hon. Members: Answer.
  Mr. Dunn: I had some difficulty in hearing the hon. Gentleman, but I undertake to answer his question in the fullness of time. I was not able to hear the hon. Gentleman's speech, but if he asked that question during the course of it, I undertake to give him a genuine reply.
  Mr. Home Robertson rose—
  Mr. Dunn: I must press on.
  Mr. David Young rose—
  Mr. Dunn: I have many questions to answer.
  The Opposition parties have made it plain that they want corporal punishment abolished. We accept that the Bill is a response to the European Court's ruling. It deals with some problems and not with others. The Labour party has made it plain that it would solve the problems facing us, if it were in government, by abolishing corporal punishment. It is consistent with the theme that we have heard often since I came to the House in 1979. Labour would abolish corporal punishment, private education, the assisted places scheme and local authorities' discretion whether to permit corporal punishment in their schools. The Labour party has the answer to everything—the abolition of circumstances in which people get together and do something of which the state does not approve.
  Our theme has been consistent with the view of many parents and teachers in England and Wales who want the sanction of corporal punishment to be retained. We believe that the Government should not legislate to force abolition. That centralist line might appeal to Opposition Members, but it has no appeal to the Government.
  The court's judgment was not about banning corporal punishment, but about the right of parents to exempt their children from such punishment. We have proposed such a right. We examined the alterntives carefully. On close examination, the possibility of some schools being able to use corporal punishment while others could not—the so-called dual system—proved utterly impractical. Having rejected abolition and the dual system, an exemption scheme was clearly the only practical solution. As we have said, it might not be perfect but criticism has greatly exaggerated the difficulties. An exemption scheme can work. Schools which wish to retain corporal punishment will make it work, and I am sure that the common sense of parents and schools will make an exemption scheme workable.
  Some people have claimed that the system is unfair. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has exposed the weakness of that argument. Schools which wish to offer exemptions while retaining corporal punishment should be free to do so. That is the basis of the Bill. It confers rights, whereas Opposition Members, who made it clear that they are committed to abolition, would like to withdraw rights.
  Several detailed questions have been asked and some of them are matters for consideration in Committee. I look forward to joining battle in Committee.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford referred to a dual system. I am sure that the House agrees
  110
  that such a system would be costly and difficult to administer. It would entail virtually doubling existing provision so that parents could gain respect for their convictions without losing the range of school choice that they have now. That would be impossibly expensive. Moreover, such a system would create practical day-to-day difficulties in the allocation of pupils to schools. Indeed, the problems for local education authorities, especially those serving country districts, would be colossal. The House would need to face the fact that children in a particular school would have to be treated differently because of the change of status in that school. That would pose unique and particular problems for the parents of those children during that difficult transitional period.
  Hon. Members referred to the problems of cost and asked whether the scheme would be expensive to administer. We accept that it will involve extra work for schools which attempt to administer the scheme.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury asked about the children of military or diplomatic personnel who are being educated in the private sector. Public moneys received for that purpose will be regarded as emoluments of salary and will therefore not be covered by the Bill. We took clear legal advice on that matter. I hope that my hon. Friend, who has a great interest in that matter, will be happy with my explanation.
  The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough asked what the Bill meant for children in receipt of assisted places. We envisage that the question whether a child should be liable to corporal punishment will be put to parents after the pupil has been accepted by the school. If the parents of such a child seek exemption, the school will be obliged to respect their wishes.
  Independent schools will be free, but not obliged, to offer the choice of exemption to all parents. The hon. Member for Hillsborough mentioned the stigma that may be attached to assisted-place children. His interpretation and general thrust are wrong. There is no stigma attached to being a recipient of a right. The parents of an assisted-place pupil will have a right which will be embodied in legislation. I accept that some independent schools will extend that right to all parents. In such circumstances, the assisted-place pupil will not be distinguished from others.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North referred to the problem of parents changing their minds. There will be a requirement for some delay—a few days—before a change of mind in favour of exemption can come into force. My hon. Friend also asked what would happen if the school changed its policy. He accepts, as I do, that a school can change its policy at any time, but clearly it will not wish to continue to change its approach.
  This has been an interesting and thoughtful debate. We were invited earlier to join battle in Committee. As I have already made clear, I relish the prospect of victory both in Committee and tonight. I promise hon. Members whose points I have not answered that I shall answer them. I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against the Opposition amendment and in favour of this important legislation.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 168, Noes 298.

  Division No. 78[

  [10 pm

  AYES

  Abse, Leo

  Anderson, Donald

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  111

  Ashton, Joe

  Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)

  Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport East)

  Barnett, Guy

  Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

  Barron, Kevin

  John, Brynmor

  Beckett, Mrs Margaret

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Beith, A. J.

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Bennett, A. (Dent'n & Red'sh)

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Lamond, James

  Boothroyd, Miss Betty

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Boyes, Roland

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Loyden, Edward

  Buchan, Norman

  McCartney, Hugh

  Caborn, Richard

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Campbell, Ian

  McKay, Allen (Penistone)

  Canavan, Dennis

  McKelvey, William

  Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)

  Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

  Cartwright, John

  Maclennan, Robert

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Clarke, Thomas

  McTaggart, Robert

  Clay, Robert

  Madden, Max

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Marek, Dr John

  Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)

  Mason, Rt Hon Roy

  Cohen, Harry

  Maxton, John

  Cook, Frank (Stockton North)

  Meacher, Michael

  Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)

  Meadowcroft, Michael

  Corbett, Robin

  Michie, William

  Cowans, Harry

  Mikardo, Ian

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Crowther, Stan

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

  Nellist, David

  Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)

  O'Brien, William

  Deakins, Eric

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Dewar, Donald

  Park, George

  Dixon, Donald

  Patchett, Terry

  Dobson, Frank

  Pendry, Tom

  Dormand, Jack

  Penhaligon, David

  Douglas, Dick

  Pike, Peter

  Dubs, Alfred

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

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Prescott, John

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

  Radice, Giles

  Eadie, Alex

  Randall, Stuart

  Eastham, Ken

  Redmond, M.

  Evans, John (St. Helens N)

  Richardson, Ms Jo

  Fatchett, Derek

  Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

  Faulds, Andrew

  Robertson, George

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

  Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)

  Rogers, Allan

  Fisher, Mark

  Rowlands, Ted

  Flannery, Martin

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Sheerman, Barry

  Forrester, John

  Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

  Foster, Derek

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Foulkes, George

  Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

  Fraser, J. (Norwood)

  Silkin, Rt Hon J.

  Freud, Clement

  Skinner, Dennis

  George, Bruce

  Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Snape, Peter

  Golding, John

  Soley, Clive

  Gould, Bryan

  Spearing, Nigel

  Gourlay, Harry

  Stott, Roger

  Hamilton, James (M'well N)

  Strang, Gavin

  Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

  Straw, Jack

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Taylor, Rt Hon John David

  Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)

  Haynes, Frank

  Thorne, Stan (Preston)

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Tinn, James

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Torney, Tom

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Wallace, James

  Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)

  Warden, Gareth (Gower)

  Home Robertson, John

  Wareing, Robert

  Howells, Geraint

  Weetch, Ken

  Hoyle, Douglas

  Welsh, Michael

  112

  White, James

  Williams, Rt Hon A.

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Winnick, David

  Mr. Ray Powell and

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Mr. John McWilliam.

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Farr, Sir John

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Favell, Anthony

  Amess, David

  Fletcher, Alexander

  Ancram, Michael

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Arnold, Tom

  Forman, Nigel

  Ashby, David

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Forth, Eric

  Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.

  Fox, Marcus

  Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)

  Franks, Cecil

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)

  Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

  Baldry, Tony

  Freeman, Roger

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Gale, Roger

  Batiste, Spencer

  Galley, Roy

  Bellingham, Henry

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  Bendall, Vivian

  Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)

  Benyon, William

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Best, Keith

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Blackburn, John

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Gorst, John

  Body, Richard

  Gow, Ian

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Bottomley, Peter

  Greenway, Harry

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Gregory, Conal

  Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Ground, Patrick

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes

  Grylls, Michael

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Gummer, John Selwyn

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

  Brinton, Tim

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

  Hannam, John

  Brooke, Hon Peter

  Hargreaves, Kenneth

  Browne, John

  Harris, David

  Bruinvels, Peter

  Harvey, Robert

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.

  Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

  Budgen, Nick

  Hawkins, C. (High Peak)

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Hawksley, Warren

  Butcher, John

  Hayes, J.

  Butler, Hon Adam

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Butterfill, John

  Hayward, Robert

  Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Cash, William

  Heddle, John

  Chalker, Mrs Lynda

  Henderson, Barry

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Chapman, Sydney

  Hickmet, Richard

  Chope, Christopher

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Churchill, W. S.

  Hind, Kenneth

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

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Holt, Richard

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Hordern, Peter

  Clegg, Sir Walter

  Howard, Michael

  Cockeram, Eric

  Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)

  Colvin, Michael

  Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

  Conway, Derek

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)

  Coombs, Simon

  Hubbard-Miles, Peter

  Cope, John

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Irving, Charles

  Critchley, Julian

  Jackson, Robert

  Crouch, David

  Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Jones, Robert (W Herts)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  du Cann, Rt Hon Sir Edward

  Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

  Dunn, Robert

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

  Durant, Tony

  Kershaw, Sir Anthony

  Dykes, Hugh

  Key, Robert

  Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Eggar, Tim

  Knight, Gregory (Derby N)

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Knowles, Michael

  Evennett, David

  Lamont, Norman

  Eyre, Sir Reginald

  Lawrence, Ivan

  113

  Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

  Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Rost, Peter

  Lester, Jim

  Rowe, Andrew

  Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Lightbown, David

  Ryder, Richard

  Lilley, Peter

  Sackville, Hon Thomas

  Lloyd, Ian (Havant)

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)

  St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.

  Lord, Michael

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Luce, Richard

  Scott, Nicholas

  Lyell, Nicholas

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  McCrindle, Robert

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  McCurley, Mrs Anna

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  MacGregor, John

  Shersby, Michael

  MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

  Sims, Roger

  MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Maclean, David John

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

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

  Speed, Keith

  McQuarrie, Albert

  Speller, Tony

  Major, John

  Spence, John

  Malins, Humfrey

  Spencer, Derek

  Malone, Gerald

  Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

  Maples, John

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Marland, Paul

  Squire, Robin

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Mates, Michael

  Stanley, John

  Mather, Carol

  Steen, Anthony

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Stern, Michael

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

  Mayhew, Sir Patrick

  Stevens, Martin (Fulham)

  Mellor, David

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Merchant, Piers

  Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)

  Miller, Hal (B'grove)

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Mills, Iain (Meriden)

  Sumberg, David

  Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Moate, Roger

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Moore, John

  Terlezki, Stefan

  Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

  Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

  Moynihan, Hon C.

  Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

  Neale, Gerrard

  Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

  Needham, Richard

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Nelson, Anthony

  Tracey, Richard

  Neubert, Michael

  Trippier, David

  Newton, Tony

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Nicholls, Patrick

  van Straubenzee, Sir W.

  Norris, Steven

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Onslow, Cranley

  Viggers, Peter

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Waddington, David

  Ottaway, Richard

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Page, Richard (Herts SW)

  Waldegrave, Hon William

  Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

  Walden, George

  Patten, John (Oxford)

  Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

  Pattie, Geoffrey

  Waller, Gary

  Pawsey, James

  Walters, Dennis

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

  Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Watson, John

  Pollock, Alexander

  Watts, John

  Portillo, Michael

  Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)

  Powley, John

  Wheeler, John

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  Whitney, Raymond

  Price, Sir David

  Wilkinson, John

  Proctor, K. Harvey

  Wolfson, Mark

  Pym, Rt Hon Francis

  Wood, Timothy

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Woodcock, Michael

  Rathbone, Tim

  Yeo, Tim

  Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Renton, Tim

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Mr. Robert Boscawen and

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Mr. Ian Lang.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Main Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 41 (Amendment on Second or Third Reading):—
  The House divided: Ayes 290, Noes 171.

  Division No. 79]

  [10.15 pm

  AYES

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Farr, Sir John

  Ancram, Michael

  Favell, Anthony

  Arnold, Tom

  Fletcher, Alexander

  Ashby, David

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Forman, Nigel

  Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)

  Fox, Marcus

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)

  Franks, Cecil

  Baldry, Tony

  Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Freeman, Roger

  Batiste, Spencer

  Gale, Roger

  Bellingham, Henry

  Galley, Roy

  Bendall, Vivian

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  Benyon, William

  Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)

  Best, Keith

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Blackburn, John

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Body, Richard

  Gorst, John

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Gow, Ian

  Bottomley, Peter

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Greenway, Harry

  Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)

  Gregory, Conal

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes

  Ground, Patrick

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Grylls, Michael

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Gummer, John Selwyn

  Brinton, Tim

  Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

  Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Brooke, Hon Peter

  Hannam, John

  Browne, John

  Hargreaves, Kenneth

  Bruinvels, Peter

  Harris, David

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Harvey, Robert

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Hawkins, C. (High Peak)

  Butcher, John

  Hayes, J.

  Butler, Hon Adam

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Butterfill, John

  Hayward, Robert

  Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Cash, William

  Heddle, John

  Chalker, Mrs Lynda

  Henderson, Barry

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Chapman, Sydney

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L

  Chope, Christopher

  Hind, Kenneth

  Churchill, W. S.

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

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

  Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Holt, Richard

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Hordern, Peter

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Howard, Michael

  Clegg, Sir Walter

  Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)

  Cockeram, Eric

  Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

  Colvin, Michael

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)

  Conway, Derek

  Hubbard-Miles, Peter

  Coombs, Simon

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Cope, John

  Irving, Charles

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Jackson, Robert

  Critchley, Julian

  Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

  Crouch, David

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Jones, Robert (W Herts)

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

  Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

  du Cann, Rt Hon Sir Edward

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

  Dunn, Robert

  Kershaw, Sir Anthony

  Durant, Tony

  Key, Robert

  Dykes, Hugh

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

  Knight, Gregory (Derby N)

  Eggar, Tim

  Knowles, Michael

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Lamont, Norman

  Evennett, David

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Eyre, Sir Reginald

  Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

  115

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Rost, Peter

  Lester, Jim

  Rowe, Andrew

  Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Lightbown, David

  Ryder, Richard

  Lilley, Peter

  Sackville, Hon Thomas

  Lloyd, Ian (Havant)

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)

  St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.

  Lord, Michael

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Luce, Richard

  Scott, Nicholas

  Lyell, Nicholas

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  McCrindle, Robert

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  McCurley, Mrs Anna

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  MacGregor, John

  Shersby, Michael

  MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

  Sims, Roger

  MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Maclean, David John

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

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

  Speed, Keith

  McQuarrie, Albert

  Speller, Tony

  Major, John

  Spence, John

  Malone, Gerald

  Spencer, Derek

  Maples, John

  Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

  Marland, Paul

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Squire, Robin

  Mates, Michael

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Mather, Carol

  Stanley, John

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Steen, Anthony

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Stern, Michael

  Mayhew, Sir Patrick

  Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

  Mellor, David

  Stevens, Martin (Fulham)

  Merchant, Piers

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

  Miller, Hal (B'grove)

  Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)

  Mills, Iain (Meriden)

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

  Sumberg, David

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Moate, Roger

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Moore, John

  Terlezki, Stefan

  Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

  Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

  Moynihan, Hon C.

  Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

  Neale, Gerrard

  Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

  Needham, Richard

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Nelson, Anthony

  Tracey, Richard

  Neubert, Michael

  Trippier, David

  Newton, Tony

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Nicholls, Patrick

  van Straubenzee, Sir W.

  Norris, Steven

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Onslow, Cranley

  Viggers, Peter

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Waddington, David

  Ottaway, Richard

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Page, Richard (Herts SW)

  Waldegrave, Hon William

  Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

  Walden, George

  Patten, John (Oxford)

  Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

  Pattie, Geoffrey

  Waller, Gary

  Pawsey, James

  Walters, Dennis

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

  Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Watson, John

  Pollock, Alexander

  Watts, John

  Portillo, Michael

  Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)

  Powley, John

  Wheeler, John

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  Whitney, Raymond

  Price, Sir David

  Wilkinson, John

  Pym, Rt Hon Francis

  Wolfson, Mark

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Wood, Timothy

  Rathbone, Tim

  Woodcock, Michael

  Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)

  Yeo, Tim

  Renton, Tim

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Mr. Robert Boscawen and

  Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

  Mr. Ian Lang.

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Ashton, Joe

  Anderson, Donald

  Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

  116

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  John, Brynmor

  Barnett, Guy

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Barron, Kevin

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Beckett, Mrs Margaret

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Beith, A. J.

  Lamond, James

  Bennett, A. (Dent'n & Red'sh)

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Boothroyd, Miss Betty

  Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

  Boyes, Roland

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Loyden, Edward

  Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

  McCartney, Hugh

  Bruce, Malcolm

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Buchan, Norman

  McKay, Allen (Penistone)

  Budgen, Nick

  McKelvey, William

  Caborn, Richard

  Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

  Campbell, Ian

  Maclennan, Robert

  Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Cartwright, John

  McTaggart, Robert

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Madden, Max

  Clarke, Thomas

  Malins, Humfrey

  Clay, Robert

  Marek, Dr John

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Mason, Rt Hon Roy

  Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)

  Maxton, John

  Cohen, Harry

  Meacher, Michael

  Cook, Frank (Stockton North)

  Meadowcroft, Michael

  Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)

  Michie, William

  Corbett, Robin

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Cowans, Harry

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Crowther, Stan

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Nellist, David

  Dalyell, Tam

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

  O'Brien, William

  Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Deakins, Eric

  Park, George

  Dewar, Donald

  Patchett, Terry

  Dixon, Donald

  Pendry, Tom

  Dobson, Frank

  Penhaligon, David

  Dormand, Jack

  Pike, Peter

  Douglas, Dick

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

  Dubs, Alfred

  Prescott, John

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Proctor, K. Harvey

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

  Radice, Giles

  Eadie, Alex

  Randall, Stuart

  Eastham, Ken

  Redmond, M.

  Evans, John (St. Helens N)

  Richardson, Ms Jo

  Fatchett, Derek

  Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

  Faulds, Andrew

  Robertson, George

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

  Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)

  Rogers, Allan

  Fisher, Mark

  Rowlands, Ted

  Flannery, Martin

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Sheerman, Barry

  Forrester, John

  Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

  Foster, Derek

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Foulkes, George

  Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

  Fraser, J. (Norwood)

  Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE)

  Freud, Clement

  Silkin, Rt Hon J.

  George, Bruce

  Silvester, Fred

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Skinner, Dennis

  Golding, John

  Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)

  Gould, Bryan

  Snape, Peter

  Gourlay, Harry

  Soley, Clive

  Grist, Ian

  Spearing, Nigel

  Hamilton, James (M'well N)

  Stott, Roger

  Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

  Strang, Gavin

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Straw, Jack

  Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

  Taylor, Rt Hon John David

  Haynes, Frank

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)

  Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)

  Thorne, Stan (Preston)

  Home Robertson, John

  Tinn, James

  Howells, Geraint

  Torney, Tom

  Hoyle, Douglas

  Wallace, James

  Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Wareing, Robert

  Hughes, Roy (Newport East)

  Weetch, Ken

  Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

  Welsh, Michael

  117

  White, James

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Williams, Rt Hon A.

  Mr. John McWilliam and

  Winnick, David

  Mr. Ray Powell.

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time and committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 42 (Committal of Bills).

  Education (Corporal Punishment) Bill

    BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
    Ordered,
    That, at this day's sitting, the Brunei and Maldives Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour. —[Mr. Garel-Jones.]

    EDUCATION (CORPORAL PUNISHMENT) BILL [MONEY]
    Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
    Resolved,
    That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Education (Corporal Punishment) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other Act.—[Mr. Garel-Jones.]

  Brunei and Maldives Bill [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  10.28 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Tim Renton): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The purpose of the Bill, which has been approved in another place, is to make minor amendments to certain United Kingdom enactments to take account of the recently acquired status of Brunei and the Maldives as members of the Commonwealth. It will have no effect on the laws of Brunei and the Maldives.
  Britain's historical connections with those two countries are particularly interesting. The sultanate of Brunei first entered special treaty relations with the United Kingdom in 1846 and subsequently enjoyed the status of a protected state until 1971. Subsequently, the United Kingdom continued to exercise direct responsibility for Brunei's external relations until 31 December 1983. On that date, Brunei resumed her status as a sovereign and independent state and was admitted to the Commonwealth with effect from 1 January 1984.
  Britain's connections with the Maldives date back to the 18th century when, on taking possession of Ceylon, we extended our protection to the Maldives. In 1948, the Maldives were granted self-government, but the United Kingdom continued to maintain control of their external relations. In 1965, the Maldives became a fully independent sovereign state outside the Commonwealth but were admitted to the Commonwealth, at their own request, as a special member in July 1982.
  Brunei and the Maldives are thus united in their membership of the Commonwealth. They are both small in area and in population and predominately Moslem, but in many respects they are strikingly different and they have their own roles to play.
  As the House knows, Brunei has been endowed with abundant resources of petroleum and natural gas. The associated revenues make her one of the wealthiest nations in Asia, with substantial foreign reserves. She is actively developing an individual foreign policy commensurate with her economic strength as a member of the United Nations, the Commonwealth and the Association of South-East Asian Nations. Brunei is already playing her part with her ASEAN partners — Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore and Thailand — in contributing towards promoting stability in south-east Asia.
  At a time when Brunei has been taking up her international role in the United Nations and within ASEAN, we are particularly proud of the fact that she has elected to join the Commonwealth and will continue to maintain her close traditional ties with the United Kingdom. We attach importance to assisting in the continued development of Brunei. Britain has long provided teachers and other experts for Brunei, and about 2,000 Brunei students are studying in Britain. We retain major investments in the Brunei economy, particularly in the vital energy sector. We are a major trading partner.
  Through those various channels we keep in the closest contact with modern day Brunei, thus preserving a tradition extending back for more than a century. Then, as now, both Brunei and we have benefited from our happy association.

  119
  The Maldives, on the other hand, have been endowed with one of the most idyllic locations in the Commonwealth, as an ever-increasing number of British tourists are finding out for themselves. As Lord Alport was moved to say in another place:
  "You will certainly find there a very hospitable, very delightful and very attractive people to meet and you will find as well charming islands and a charming environment."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 November 1984; Vol. 457, c. 513.]
  We remember with much pleasure that President Gayoom made a successful visit to Britain in May 1982, as a guest of the Government, during which he called on the Prime Minister, lunched with Her Majesty the Queen and announced the Maldives' application for membership of the Commonwealth. We were pleased to welcome him back to London in June 1984 and were delighted that he was able to address the Royal Commonwealth Society conference on the important and appropriate subject of small states in the Commonwealth.
  Our long association with Brunei and the Maldives has made our relationship with both particularly close. It remains so now that they are independent, as was demonstrated by the warm reception that the Bill received in another place. Many noble Lords described their connections with both Brunei and the Maldives and expressed their good wishes to both countries.
  I know that those sentiments are shared by many hon. Members on both sides of the House. In particular, I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris), who is sorry that he cannot be here, has expressed personal interest in, and support for, the Bill.
  Therefore, it gives us great pleasure to welcome the admission of Brunei and the Maldives to the Commonwealth—a process on which the Bill puts the seal. We are confident that we shall continue to build on our long-standing friendship with both countries.
  The amendments which the Bill makes to United Kingdom enactments follow the precedents of the Papua New Guinea, Western Samoa and Nauru (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1980 and the New Hebrides Act 1980. These precedents relate to countries which, like Brunei and the Maldives, required only such legislative provision as was consequent on their accession to membership of the Commonwealth.
  In the case of former British colonies, the relevant independence Act passed on the achievement of independence, and almost simultaneous accession to the Commonwealth, includes these necessary amendments to other United Kingdom legislation which place the state on the same footing as other Commonwealth countries. However, both Brunei and the Maldives have achieved full sovereignty and membership of the Commonwealth without the need for such an independence Act.
  Clause 1 and the schedule provide for the necessary modification of United Kingdom enactments. Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the schedule provide for amendments to section 427(2) of the Merchant Shipping Act 1894 and to the Whaling Industry (Regulation) Act 1934. Because nationals of Brunei and the Maldives will be brought within the definition of "British subjects" in enactments passed before the coming into force of the 1981 Act, it is necessary to amend the Merchant Shipping Act 1894 and
  120
  the Whaling Industry (Regulation) Act 1934 in such a way as to exclude Brunei and the Maldives from their application.
  Paragraph 3 of the schedule provides for an amendment to the Imperial Institute Act, as amended by the Commonwealth Institute Act 1958. Brunei and the Maldives will thereby be included as countries which may be represented on the board of governors who are consulted when arrangements for the Commonwealth Institute are changed.
  Paragraphs 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the schedule provide for amendments to Acts relating to Commonwealth forces and their discipline while on visits to the United Kingdom. These amendments make provisions for forces raised in Brunei and the Maldives similar to those which apply to forces raised in other Commonwealth countries.
  Paragraph 8 provides for an amendment to the British Nationality Act 1981. The Maldives will be added to the list of Commonwealth countries under schedule 3 of that Act. Paragraph 8 applies to the Maldives only. The similar consequential change with regard to Brunei has already been effected by Order in Council.
  I am sure that all hon. Members will wish to join Her Majesty's Government in welcoming the Bill. Although the amendments which it introduces have practical implications in only limited fields, they are changes which should be made if nationals of Brunei and the Maldives are to be given their proper Commonwealth status in this country.
  10.38 pm
  Mr. Donald Anderson: The Minister's warm words of welcome are shared by Opposition Members. It is a pleasant surprise of our Commonwealth history that two such different territories can be brought together in one Bill. It illustrates the unique nature of the historical development of our colonial or, in this case, quasi-colonial past.
  Both countries, as the Minister said in what one might describe as his fascinating history lesson, went through a period as British protectorates, and for a time we were responsible for the external relations in both countries; both are somewhat artificial in geographic terms; both have populations fewer than 200,000 people; both are mainly Islamic in religion; and both have historic links with our military forces—one thinks of the problems we had in the mid-1970s in our relationship with Gan and of the Gurkha detachment in Brunei.
  The similarities between the two territories end there. The Maldives with their 20 coral atolls depend on fishing and are relatively poor. Brunei with its oil wealth is per capita one of the richest countries in Asia. Brunei has, however, a number of problems. Behind the wealth and apparent stability there is, as I am sure most friends and observers note, a need to modernise its political structures. The elective parts of the constitution have been in abeyance for some time. Sadly, Brunei has a number of political prisoners. Brunei faces the problem faced by most Islamic countries—the need to work out its relationship, in terms of its laws and so on, in line with the new radical impulse of Islam.
  Recently, there were difficult negotiations over the future of the Gurkhas. It would be helpful if the Under-Secretary of State explained whether there are any circumstances in which the Gurkha battalions — still under the control of the Ministry of Defence—could be

  121
  used for internal purposes. In 1962, the Gurkhas were used to suppress the rebellion which followed the success of the Brunei People's party in the only democratic elections held in the territory in 1961. In another place, Lady Young, speaking on behalf of the Government, said that the presence of the Gurkhas contributed to the stability of Brunei and of the surrounding area. Is the Minister confident that the guidelines are sufficiently clear? Is he confident that, in an internal emergency, there would be no misunderstanding between Britain and the Sultan about the role that the Gurkhas can play at such a time?
  There is much that is positive about development in the Maldives and Brunei and much that is to the credit of the Sultan's Government in terms of the development of welfare services and looking ahead to the period when the oil runs out. The Brunei people will then need to depend very much on their own resources, particularly agriculture. The fact that there is a lack of personal income tax makes other people in other countries jealous of Brunei.
  The problem in Brunei is not shortage of cash but the lack of the trained human resources which are necessary for the development of that country. There is a shortage of key personnel and a need for technical assistance. I am pleased to note how much our Government and the Governments of neighbouring Commonwealth countries have done to assist Brunei in its technical development. The Under-Secretary of State referred to the fact that there are about 2,000 students from Brunei in Britain. It is especially gratifying to note that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and Malaysia and Singapore have given a helping hand to Brunei in training diplomatic personnel and in introducing Brunei, step by step, to international organisations. We are confident that that co-operation within the Commonwealth can be further developed.
  As the Minister has said, the Bill is relatively minor and technical. It marks the fact that both territories have achieved their independence in a mood rather different from that to which we are accustomed with the majority of our Commonwealth countries. Hence, the Bill makes minor consequential changes to United Kingdom law, making a formality of the end of the quasi-dependent relationship. For example, under paragraph 8 of the schedule, the addition of the Maldives to the countries whose citizens are defined as Commonwealth citizens under the British Nationality Act 1981 will make no practical difference to that country.
  We look forward to welcoming the two territories to full Commonwealth status, and we shall do all that we can to make them full members of the Commonwealth family. It is good to know that they see advantages in joining the Commonwealth. It illustrates the diversity which is, perhaps, the strength of the Commonwealth connection.
  I understand that as yet no application has been made by either territory to join the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, but I am confident of their eventual membership. They will be welcome in that organisation. We wish both countries well. We look forward to continued co-operation within the Commonwealth family to our mutual benefit.
  10.45 pm
  Mr. A. J. Beith: Our welcome is no less enthusiastic for the Bill and the accession to the Commonwealth of these two states. I shall not emulate my noble Friend Lord Tanlaw who, when the matter was
  122
  discussed in another place, was able to point to the fact that three generations of his family, culminating in his grandfather, had been made hereditary rulers of Sarawak by the Sultan of Borneo in the 19th century, an arrangement which lasted well into this century. I make no such claim.
  I emphasise our enthusiastic support for Brunei's accession to the Commonwealth and for British relations with Brunei. There is a well-established trading relationship and Brunei has an increasing stake in the British economy. Strong trading relations must be maintained between our countries.
  Brunei is the 49th full member of the Commonwealth. I hope that it will not be long before similar legislation is before us to welcome the 50th, which should be Namibia. The sooner the better, because that story has been going on for too long. The Maldives have been independent since 1965 and have special membership of the Commonwealth, enjoying all the benefits of membership without being involved in Heads of Government meetings. Both countries are small states, within the normal definition of that term, and 70 per cent. of the smaller states are members of the Commonwealth. Both must be aware that small, while being beautiful, can also mean being vulnerable. The matter of vulnerability was thrown into sharp relief by the Grenada crisis.
  The Commonwealth Heads of Government have set in train a study of the special needs of small states including their defence and economic needs. The presence of the Gurkhas in Brunei and Brunei's interest in the protection of its territory has been mentioned.
  We must also be aware of the economic vulnerability of the Maldives. It is a poor country, and we hope that it will benefit from the tourism, to which the Minister referred, and strong links with and support from Britain. Interest has been expressed about the development of permanent trade and political representation in London. We hope that that will come about.
  The hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) mentioned the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. It has published a report on the security of small states and has explored the Commonwealth dimension in that. We must all hope that those ideas can be developed.
  The Commonwealth is an extraordinary community of nations to which those two have been added. It covers more than one third of the world's population and one third of the nations with membership of the United Nations. The fact that on achieving independence so many of those territories have chosen freely to become members of the Commonwealth is remarkable and a great tribute to the Commonwealth's potential and possibilities.
  There are links of language, culture, history and shared institutions, but we in Britain must remember how much we have to do to sustain that connection, and the arrival of two more states within the Commonwealth in recent years, of which this Bill is the culmination, should remind us of that. In all Government policy, whether we are talking about overseas students, broadcasting services to the Commonwealth or other policies, we must remember our side of the commitment to the Commonwealth and how much that should imbue every aspect of Government policy. We also hope that involvement in the Commonwealth will be the means of widening and spreading democracy in all its members.
  10.50 pm
  Mr. Renton: I thank the hon. Members for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) and for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) for their interesting contributions to our short debate. The hon. Member for Swansea, East referred to the disparity between the two countries covered by the Bill. He was quite right, but what is interesting—the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed picked up this theme—is the fact that, despite that disparity, those two countries are now united not only in that both are independent and have a long association with this country but also in their membership of the Commonwealth. That is a striking feature of the Commonwealth.
  Like the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, I read the speech made by Lord Tanlaw. It would be hard for any hon. Member of this House to emulate the close four-generation connection of the Brooke family with the development of Brunei, but what we can do is to show the high regard in which we hold the two countries in question. That is a tribute to the friendship between the United Kingdom and Brunei and the Maldives, and bodes well for our future relations.
  The hon. Member for Swansea, East referred to the question of the Gurkhas. The Gurkha battalion is being retained in Brunei at the request of the Sultan. He believes —as do Her Majesty's Government—that its presence contributes to the stability of Brunei and the surrounding area. Other members of the Association of South-East Asian Nations have shown their understanding of the arrangement. The arrangement is also beneficial to the United Kingdom in that the battalion is found in rotation from the Hong Kong garrison and has, in Brunei, opportunities for training that are unavailable in Hong Kong. The battalion remains an integral part of the British Army, under the operational control of the Ministry of Defence. It is the intention that the battalion will normally remain in Brunei.
  The Governments of the United Kingdom and of Brunei are committed to consult on matters of mutual concern under their treaty of friendship and co-operation of 1979. There should therefore be no possibility of misunderstanding such as the hon. Member for Swansea, East feared.
  The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed rightly referred to the special needs of small states. That is a singularly appropriate point in reference to the Maldives. He will be pleased to note the encouraging progress made with the study commissioned at the 1983 Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in New Delhi, which the British Government continue strongly to support. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office made an initial contribution to the study for the Commonwealth Secretariat in June 1984 and our memorandum, published by the Select Committee in July, is the fullest statement
  124
  to date of British policy in that area. The committee that was set up continues to make its inquiries and undertake its research, and we await with great interest the conclusions of the study.
  It is probably worth stating that our basic approach is to emphasise the objective of prevention rather than cure, through greater regional co-operation by the small states themselves, the provision of technical assistance and training assistance for the armed and police forces, an active information policy, the promotion of political and cultural links and the maintenance of an adequate diplomatic presence in as many small states as possible. The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed spoke in moving terms about the development towards democracy in many countries throughout the world and how many of them have become members of the Commonwealth. I am sure that the whole House wishes to welcome these two countries as members of the Commonwealth. I should like all hon. Members present to join me in expressing our desire that our close friendship with Brunei and the Maldives should be long and fruitful. We are proud to see them as fellow members of the Commonwealth and it is in that vein that I commend the Bill to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Lang.]
  Bill immediately considered in Committee; reported, without amendment.
  Bill read the Third time and passed, without amendment.

  Brunei and Maldives Bill [Lords]

    BANKRUPTCY (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords]
    Ordered,
    That the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with as if it had been certified by Mr. Speaker as relating exclusively to Scotland.—[Mr. Lang.]

    BANKRUPTCY (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords]
    Order for Second reading read.
    Ordered,
    That the Bill be referred to the Scottish Grand Committee. —[Mr. Lang.]

    FAMILY LAW (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords]
    Ordered,
    That the Family Law (Scotland) Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with as if it had been certified by Mr. Speaker as relating exclusively to Scotland.—[Mr. Lang.]

    FAMILY LAW (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords]
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Ordered,
    That the Bill be referred to the Scottish Grand Committee. —[Mr. Lang.]

  VE Day (40th Anniversary)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That the House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Lang.]
  10.57 pm
  Mr. John Cartwright: I am glad of this opportunity to discuss in more detail than has hitherto been possible the celebration of the 40th anniversary of VE day.
  I welcome the fact that the Government appear to have changed their earlier attitude. I tabled a question to the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in November last year, asking about the details of the anniversary celebrations. I was shocked to get a curt and peremptory reply from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, which ran:
  "We have no present plans for any official British celebration of this anniversary."—[Official Report, 27 November 1984; Vol. 68, c. 453.]
  That struck me as unacceptable, so I pursued the matter by letter with the Foreign Secretary and eventually received a reply from the noble Lady, the Minister of State, which caused some consternation when it was published a couple of weeks ago. The most surprising and, to me, disappointing comment in that letter was her conclusion that the celebration of the 40th Anniversary of VE day, such as I had suggested, would be
  "at best nostalgic and at worst anti-German".
  It may be my advancing years, but I cannot see much wrong with nostalgia, especially nostalgia for a momentous event in the lives of many people. It has become clear that many of our colleagues in the Federal Republic of Germany are not opposed to the idea of celebrating the 40th anniversary of VE day. Many of my friends there have made it clear that they are as anxious as any one else to celebrate the end of the Nazi regime. They point out,. with considerable justification, that the first victims of the regime were Germans. They are glad to celebrate the sort of things which we have in mind.
  I endorse what the Prime Minister has said and share her objectives in commemorating the 40th anniversary of VE day. As I understand it, she is saying that we should first pay tribute to those who gave their lives during the war. That is absolutely right. It is also right to emphasise the reconciliation that has taken place between ourselves and the nations that were our traditional enemies in Europe. We should celebrate 40 years of peace in Europe. We should give thanks for the new Europe which emerged from the old at the end of the war and in which nations which were for generations at each other's throats are now close allies. All those matters are worth celebrating.
  I also wish to refer to VJ Day. I have received many letters from people who say, "We were the forgotten army in the far east. Do not let us be the forgotten army again at any celebrations". That is a fair point. I do not know whether it would be better to combine celebrations of the end of the war in the far east with celebrations of the end of war in Europe, or to have a simple, separate and wholly appropriate celebration at the appropriate time. Whatever we do, we must not give the impression that everything finished with the war in Europe and overlook the contribution of our countrymen who fought in the far east.
  I wish to urge some aims and motives on the Government and to make some sensible suggestions. First, I wish to see the broadest possible celebrations and commemorations in the United Kingdom. Secondly, I
  126
  hope that whatever we organise will be genuinely international in character and involve both our former enemies and allies.
  The events should involve ordinary people. Ordinary families bore the brunt of the war and made the sacrifices demanded by it. Celebrations should not, therefore, be limited to national leaders, to the great and the good, but should involve a broad cross-section of ordinary people. We should seek the participation of the veterans of the war to whom we owe so much.
  I hope, however, that we shall also try to involve young people. They have benefited from the peace, and our future depends on them. They sometimes fail to understand what the war was about, and how much we owe to those who fought it on our behalf. I hope that celebrations will not be limited to a national event at Westminster abbey or the Cenotaph, important though such a function may be. It would be a tragedy if the commemoration were London dominated. There must be local events, such as church services, which make clear the contributions of all communities, towns and villages, to the war effort.
  I hope that the commemoration will be seen not simply as a solemn and serious occasion. It should undoubtedly have its solemn and serious content. However, my abiding recollection of VE day in 1945 is of street parties. I still feel the great sense of relief that the war was over. Street parties are part of our folklore. The ability to organise them passes from generation to generation. We do not do that often enough. We tend to do it on great occasions, such as coronations and jubilees. The 40th anniversary of VE day is a good basis on which to organise street parties. I know from my postbag that much work is being done in many communities, and I hope that the Government and local authorities will do all they can to encourage such a popular celebration.
  This was not just a national war; it was a war that involved several of our allies. I have already mentioned the need for reconciliation and the need for the involvement of the Federal Republic of Germany and, indeed, the German Democratic Republic, if it wishes to be involved. We must also involve our allies, and the Americans will be an important element in the celebrations. I say that with self-interest, because I grew up in Lincoln during the war and I remember that Lincoln was surrounded by Royal Air Force and United States Air Force bases. Many Americans gave their lives, not only in the air force but in other forces, for our future in Europe. Clearly, Commonwealth nations should also have the opportunity to take part.
  Perhaps the most controversial suggestion is that we should seek to involve the Soviet Union in the celebrations. There has been a suspicion that the Soviet Union will be restricted to ambassadorial involvement. I would not support such an approach, which would be a cold and formal involvement. I was interested to see the letter of 12 December from Lord Carrington to Mr. Martin Dent of the University of Keele, in which he endorsed the idea of an international celebration. He said:
  "I have much sympathy with the view that it would be right to plan the celebrations in a way which emphasises the reconciliation between those combatants who are now partners in the Atlantic Alliance and the hopes which we all have for a more constructive relationship with the Soviet Union."
  We should aim to achieve that in our commemoration of the 40th anniversary of VE day.

  127
  I say that ambassadorial involvement will not be sufficient, because there was, and still is, an understanding in Britain of the extraordinary contribution of the Russian people to the winning of the second world war, and there is a case for a much more imaginative involvement of the Soviet people in the commemoration of the peace. It has been suggested that the sword of Stalingrad, which was forged in Britain as a token of the respect and admiration of the British people for the defence of Stalingrad, should return to Britain for display. That would be worth pursuing.
  The most obvious example of British and American co-operation with the Soviet Union during the war were the Arctic convoys of British and United States merchant ships carrying desperately needed war materials to the Soviet Union between 1941 and 1943. Those convoys were concentrated in the winter months to take advantage of the bad weather and the darkness of the Arctic night in order to hamper Nazi attacks on the ships. The conditions must have been appalling, and many British and American lives were lost in the effort to supply the Soviet Union. By the end of 1942, 219 ships had reached Murmansk, but no fewer than 64 had been sunk. The convoy operation was a heavy burden on Britain. The responsibility of defending the ships against German aircraft and U-boats fell on Britain, and there was also the problem of providing the desperately needed equipment. By the end of 1942, Britain had provided no fewer than 1,793 tanks and 1,988 aircraft —far more than even the United States provided—and Britain's resources were clearly strained.
  Sir Winston Churchill, in his history of the second world war, said:
  "We gave our heart's blood resolutely to our valiant, suffering ally."
  That episode in British-Soviet relations is worth recalling when we commemorate VE day. A reunion of survivors from all three nations would be a fitting part of any celebration, and perhaps one could organise a naval exchange, with ships from all three nations visiting each other's ports.
  Another aspect of Anglo-Soviet co-operation that is worth recalling is the Aid to Russia Fund, launched in 1941 by the Red Cross and the Order of St. John. Mrs. Churchill, as she then was, the wife of the Prime Minister, accepted an invitation to head the organisation. Her first appeal was issued in October 1941. It was a very moving appeal. In that appeal Mrs. Churchill said:
  "There is no one in this country whose heart has not been deeply stirred by the appalling drama now going on in Russia. We are amazed at the power of the Russian defence and at the skill with which it is conducted. We have been moved to profound admiration for the valour, the tenacity and the patriotic self-sacrifice of the Russian people. And above all, perhaps, we have been shaken with horrow and pity at the vast scale of human suffering."
  That appeal, which was targeted to launch £1 million, was much more successful than that. Contributions came in from all sources. Lord Nuffield gave £50,000 to the appeal. The King and the Queen gave £1,000 specifically to assist the Russians. In fact, nearly £8 million was raised, the bulk of it in weekly subscriptions from ordinary people. To quote again from Sir Winston Churchill's official history:
  "Thus through the powerful organisation of the Red Cross and St. John's and in spite of heavy losses in the Arctic convoys
  128
  medical and surgical supplies and all kinds of comforts and special appliances found their way in unbroken flow through the icy and deadly seas to the valiant Russian armies and people."
  That kind of achievement is worth recalling, perhaps by a reunion of those who helped to raise the money and organise the assistance with those in the Soviet Union who benefited from it.
  Perhaps one might be more positive and suggest that we could commemorate the Aid to Russia fund by trying to found a new Anglo-Soviet fund to finance much needed medical projects in the Third world. Whatever we do, we should not lose this opportunity which the commemoration of VE day gives us to try to improve relations with the Soviet Union. That is very much of a motivating force now in British foreign policy. I suggest that there could be no better way to improve relationships than by trying to rekindle that spirit of co-operation that existed 40 years ago.
  These suggestions are by no means intended to be exclusive. They represent some of the ideas that have been put to me by people in various parts of the country from all political persuasions. I perfectly understand that there may be many other ideas that are well worth pursuing, but if the 40th anniversary of VE day is to be commemorated it should certainly not be a half-hearted operation. It really should be in keeping with the momentous impact of the second world war and the personal sacrifice that that war demanded. It is in that sense that I commend these ideas to the Government and look forward with great interest to the Minister's reaction.
  11.12 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. John Lee): I welcome the opportunity presented by the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright) in initiating this debate to explain a little more fully the Government's thinking on this very important issue. I know of his early and genuine interest in VE day—it is perhaps fitting that the hon. Member's constituency has such an historic military connection. I visited Woolwich myself last September and I know that during the second world war the royal ordnance factory at Woolwich suffered 25 separate air raids. Despite this, the factory produced 11,000 artillery pieces, 14 million shells and no fewer than 1,350 million rounds of small arms ammunition—a truly remarkable achievement.
  We have stated on a number of occasions that we have decided that the 40th anniversary of the end of the second world war should be marked by a national commemoration. We are particularly conscious of the high degree of public interest that there has been on this question and understand and sympathise with the feelings that have been expressed.
  We are still considering the form that the commemoration should take and a number of options are being closely studied: I am sorry, therefore, that I cannot be specific tonight. A service of thanksgiving is one option that has been widely canvassed and we are sympathetic to the opportunity this would give for those who gave their lives to be honoured and for the spirit of peace and reconciliation to be stressed.
  In planning the commemorations we are also carefully considering the nature and extent of representation from other countries. We shall, of course, take into account the

  129
  views that have been expressed to us from various quarters, including those of the hon. Gentleman, before taking any decisions.
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has already announced that there will be many representatives of foreign and Commonwealth Governments to whom we shall extend invitations to take part in the commemoration, either as high commissioners or as ambassadors, including those from the Federal Republic of Germany and the Soviet Union.
  We shall, of course, wish to ensure that this does not become a divisive issue, or give grounds for offence to our allies, past or present. As the Prime Minister has said, we shall need to consult widely before determining the form of the occasion and before making final decisions.
  We shall, as always, remember the contribution made by our allies in the second world war and our joint victory over tyranny — not least immense Soviet achievement and sacrifice. The USSR, we must remember, lost over 20 million dead in the second world war.
  However, as the Prime Minister said in the House on 15 January, we shall aim in the commemoration to focus not only on the anniversaries but on the achievements of the last 40 years in preserving peace with freedom. We shall, of course, have very much in mind the reconstruction and reconciliation that has been achieved in this time. As we approach this 40th anniversary of the end of the second world war we are mindful that our adversaries at that time are now our allies, and are conscious of the considerable efforts that have been made to build constructively on the sacrifices of the war years and the achievement of reconciliation.
  Concern has been expressed as to what the attitude of our close ally the Federal Republic of Germany will be to our holding VE day commemorations.
  I should like to set out Chancellor Kohl's approach as spelt out at the press conference following the Prime Minister's recent meeting with him. I quote:
  "I explained to the Prime Minister the specific psychological situation in the Federal Republic and I explained to her that two thirds of the population alive in the Federal Republic today do not, from their own experience, remember the terrible things that happened under the Hitler regime, because they were born after it, and it is important, therefore, for us to commemorate this day in being aware of the history of our people and remembering the terrible things that were done in the name of Germany, but is also—in this sense for us a day of liberation and at the same time we must remember all the suffering and all the dead, and so when we commemorate this we commemorate this date by turning inwards and thinking about our past and our future.
  It is also important in remembering this zero hour in German history, we should remember the fact that the chance which was offered us at that time was used. We built up the Federal Republic and we have contributed to maintaining peace and freedom and progress for 40 years, and that is the very great achievement of the generation before us, and of course, in all this we must always think back to the by now almost legendary speech of Winston Churchill which he delivered in Zurich, which helped to lay the foundation for this future development."
  Those were Chancellor Kohl's words.
  As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made clear after her discussions with Chancellor Kohl, we see 1945 as a year which saw a new rebirth of freedom; a freedom which we must preserve for future generations.
  I should also stress, and this will be reflected in the tone of the occasion, that VE day did not mark the end of the second world war and our commemorations will focus on
  130
  the ending of the war both in Europe and in the far east and on the heroic sacrifice of the allied forces in all theatres.
  Hon. Members have expressed the view in this House that those who fought in the far east should not be forgotten. I can reassure them that the gallantry those men displayed and the suffering and privations that they underwent are not forgotten; and that they will be equally honoured in our commemorations.
  However, the hon. Gentleman has specifically referred in this short debate to Victory in Europe day, and I believe it would be appropriate to spend a few moments considering the events that have followed that victory.
  In 1945 Europe had been torn apart by the devastating conflict that had embroiled its nations for six years. This year we are able to celebrate 40 years of continuous peace in Europe. It is not by chance that the longest period of peace in Europe this century has coincided with the existence of the Atlantic Alliance.
  The overriding purpose of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation is the preservation of the principles of freedom and democracy. Its strength lies in the determination of its signatories to do all in their power to safeguard peace and international security, and in their willingness to work together in a wholly defensive alliance. It is a measure of the remarkable success that NATO has had in meeting its objectives that the 35 years of its existence have been marked by an unbroken period of peace in Europe. This has been at a time when we have been faced with the advent of weapons of unprecedented power. There has been conflict and unrest in one or more parts of the world more or less throughout the entire period, and there has been no weakening, indeed the opposite, in the challenge posed by the Soviet Union and her Warsaw Pact allies.
  What, then, has been the key to the continued effectiveness of our transatlantic Alliance? There have, of course been difficulties and differences of opinion—this is natural in an alliance of independent nations. But it is the main strength of NATO that its members, with common aims and interests, can discuss and resolve their problems together. NATO is an association of free states, joined together to preserve their security by collective self-defence, and to strengthen peace by means of constructive dialogue. Our solidarity does not conflict with the ability of each country to pursue its own policies. We are a partnership of equals, with none dominant and none dominated, but we are committed to close consultation and co-operation in pursuit of our successful aims.

  In addition to guaranteeing our security, we of course see the need to build the foundations of lasting peace, to develop balanced East-West relations and to contribute to peaceful progress worldwide. We shall continue to pursue these ends with our allies in NATO.
  Probably three fifths of our population were born after the end of the Second World War, including many hon. Members of this House. I myself was born midway through the war in 1942. It is as easy for my own and following generations to forget the tyranny, the inhumanity, the bloodshed, the destruction and the suffering of the conflict as it is to be unaware of the fortitude, the courage and the bravery demonstrated by our forces and civilians and by those of our allies.
  The peace and freedom which we in the West enjoy was not won easily and must never be taken for granted. We in this country have so much to be thankful for.

  131
  Question put and agreed to.
  132
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-one minutes past Eleven o'clock.

CIVIL SERVICE
  Ethnic Surveys
  Ethnic Surveys
ENVIRONMENT
  Dipper Population
  Dipper Population
  Birds of Prey
  Birds of Prey
  Multiple Occupation Properties (Fire Regulations)
  Multiple Occupation Properties (Fire Regulations)
  Water Authorities
  Water Authorities
  Water Charges
  Water Charges
  Radioactive Discharges
  Radioactive Discharges
  Agricultural Holdings
  Agricultural Holdings
  Stolport, Newham
  Stolport, Newham
  North Pennines
  North Pennines
  Falkland Islands
  Falkland Islands
  Publicly Owned Land (Sales)
  Publicly Owned Land (Sales)
  Water Act 1973
  Water Act 1973
  Planning Advice
  Planning Advice
  Brent Labour Group
  Brent Labour Group
WALES
  Children's Books
  Children's Books
  Areas of Special Scientific Interest (Designation)
  Areas of Special Scientific Interest (Designation)
  Housing Authorities (Revenue)
  Housing Authorities (Revenue)
  Homes Insulation
  Homes Insulation
  Welsh Water Authority (Staff)
  Welsh Water Authority (Staff)
  Heath Hospital, Cardiff
  Heath Hospital, Cardiff
  Road Accidents (Statistics)
  Road Accidents (Statistics)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Confidential Papers (Disposal)
  Confidential Papers (Disposal)
TRANSPORT
  Minister's Letter (Cost)
  Minister's Letter (Cost)
  Coal Industry Dispute
  Coal Industry Dispute
  Scheduled Air Services
  Scheduled Air Services
  Fog Detection
  Fog Detection
  Airports
  Airports
  North-West (Ministerial Visit)
  North-West (Ministerial Visit)
  Sinclair C5
  Sinclair C5
  Manchester Airport
  Manchester Airport
  Manchester (Outer Ring Road)
  Manchester (Outer Ring Road)
  Crash Barriers
  Crash Barriers
  Road Accidents (Statistics)
  Road Accidents (Statistics)
  Aerial Spraying
  Aerial Spraying
  Chief Inspecting Officer of Railways (Report)
  Chief Inspecting Officer of Railways (Report)
  Train Accident (Rugby)
  Train Accident (Rugby)
SCOTLAND
  Scottish Tourist Board
  Scottish Tourist Board
  Dialysis Machines
  Dialysis Machines
  Hospital Closures (Lothian Region)
  Hospital Closures (Lothian Region)
  Community Nursing Services
  Community Nursing Services
  Mental Illness
  Mental Illness
  Terrorism
  Terrorism
  West of Scotland Science Park
  West of Scotland Science Park
  Postal Voting
  Postal Voting
  Traffic Accidents
  Traffic Accidents
EMPLOYMENT
  Youth Training Scheme
  Youth Training Scheme
  Low-paid Workers
  Low-paid Workers
  Wages Councils
  Wages Councils
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Shop Hours (Auld Report)
  Shop Hours (Auld Report)
  Lambeth (Targeting and Surveillance)
  Lambeth (Targeting and Surveillance)
  Khat
  Khat
  Police Officers (Rent Allowances)
  Police Officers (Rent Allowances)
  Ms. D. S. Gelleburn
  Ms. D. S. Gelleburn
  Electoral Registration (Mental Hospital Patients)
  Electoral Registration (Mental Hospital Patients)
  Brent Labour Group
  Brent Labour Group
  Society of Civil and Public Servants (Meeting)
  Society of Civil and Public Servants (Meeting)
  Foxley Corner, Wiltshire (Incident)
  Foxley Corner, Wiltshire (Incident)
  Fire Regulations
  Fire Regulations
  Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984
  Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984
  General Election Statistics
  General Election Statistics
PRIME MINISTER
  Malaysia (Visit)
  Malaysia (Visit)
  Limited List Prescribing
  Limited List Prescribing
  Museums and Galleries Commission (Chairman)
  Museums and Galleries Commission (Chairman)
  Permanent Secretaries
  Permanent Secretaries
  Coal Industry Dispute
  Coal Industry Dispute
  Chile
  Chile
  Argentina (Arms Sales)
  Argentina (Arms Sales)
  Diego Ramirez
  Diego Ramirez
  Adelaide Island
  Adelaide Island
  Nuclear Materials
  Nuclear Materials
  Flight Lieutenant Richard Thomas
  Flight Lieutenant Richard Thomas
  Falkland Islands
  Falkland Islands
  Scientific and Military Co-operation
  Scientific and Military Co-operation
  Uneconomic Farms
  Uneconomic Farms
  Personal Taxation
  Personal Taxation
  Public Relations Consultants
  Public Relations Consultants
  Ministerial Cars (Parking Offences)
  Ministerial Cars (Parking Offences)
  Local Authorities (Government Grants)
  Local Authorities (Government Grants)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Deaf Children (Teachers)
  Deaf Children (Teachers)
  Open University
  Open University
  Student Grants
  Student Grants
  Primary Schools (Toilets)
  Primary Schools (Toilets)
  Rajneesh School, Suffolk
  Rajneesh School, Suffolk
  European Organisation for Nuclear Research
  European Organisation for Nuclear Research
  Manchester (School Governors)
  Manchester (School Governors)
  University Grants Committee (Scotland)
  University Grants Committee (Scotland)
  General Certificate of Secondary Education
  General Certificate of Secondary Education
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  World Bank Special Fund
  World Bank Special Fund
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
  Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984
  Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984
  Official Secrets Act 1911
  Official Secrets Act 1911
  PROSECUTIONS UNDER SECTION 2
  PROSECUTIONS UNDER SECTION 2
  PROSECUTIONS UNDER SECTION 1
  PROSECUTIONS UNDER SECTION 1
  Jury Vetting
  Jury Vetting
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Non-Proliferation Treaty
  Non-Proliferation Treaty
  Iran-Iraq War
  Iran-Iraq War
  Operation Moses
  Operation Moses
  Irish Foreign Minister
  Irish Foreign Minister
  Foreign Governments (Representations)
  Foreign Governments (Representations)
  Falkland Islands
  Falkland Islands
ENERGY
  BNOC (Oil Prices)
  BNOC (Oil Prices)
  Polkemmet Colliery
  Polkemmet Colliery
  Standing Charges
  Standing Charges
  "Cold Comfort for the Poor"
  "Cold Comfort for the Poor"
  National Coal Board (Membership)
  National Coal Board (Membership)
  Coal (Subsidies)
  Coal (Subsidies)
  Coal Industry
  Coal Industry
  Privatisation
  Privatisation
  Electrical Appliances
  Electrical Appliances
  Uranium (Namibia)
  Uranium (Namibia)
  Combined Heat and Power Schemes
  Combined Heat and Power Schemes
  Sleipner Gas Contract
  Sleipner Gas Contract
  Natural Gas Reserves
  Natural Gas Reserves
  Gas Consumption
  Gas Consumption
  National Coal Board (Public Relations)
  National Coal Board (Public Relations)
  Nationalised Industries (Contracts)
  Nationalised Industries (Contracts)
  Alternative Forms of Energy
  Alternative Forms of Energy
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Retailers (Discounts)
  Retailers (Discounts)
  Companies (Liquidation Law)
  Companies (Liquidation Law)
  Civil Defence
  Civil Defence
  Electric Batteries
  Electric Batteries
  Books and Journals
  Books and Journals
  China (Trade)
  China (Trade)
  Pharmaceutical Products (Exports-Imports)
  Pharmaceutical Products (Exports-Imports)
  Shipbuilding (Privatisation)
  Shipbuilding (Privatisation)
  Second-hand Cars
  Second-hand Cars
  United Medical Enterprises
  United Medical Enterprises
  Post Office (Counter Services)
  Post Office (Counter Services)
  Radio Wavebands (Consultative Document)
  Radio Wavebands (Consultative Document)
  Outward Mission Scheme
  Outward Mission Scheme
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Pesticides
  Pesticides
  Warble Fly
  Warble Fly
  Sugar
  Sugar
  Aspartame
  Aspartame
  Milk
  Milk
  Butter (Intervention Stores)
  Butter (Intervention Stores)
  EC Agriculture (Financial Guidelines)
  EC Agriculture (Financial Guidelines)
  Veterinary Investigation Laboratories, Itchen Abbas
  Veterinary Investigation Laboratories, Itchen Abbas
  Ministerial Visit (Caribbean)
  Ministerial Visit (Caribbean)
  Bananas
  Bananas
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Board and Lodging Payments
  Board and Lodging Payments
  Residential Accommodation
  Residential Accommodation
  Infant Mortality
  Infant Mortality
  Ambulances
  Ambulances
  NHS (Charges)
  NHS (Charges)
  Tendering
  Tendering
  Fluoride
  Fluoride
  Prescribed Medicines
  Prescribed Medicines
  Surgery Closures
  Surgery Closures
  Family Practitioner Committees
  Family Practitioner Committees
  Milk and Welfare Foods (Entitlement)
  Milk and Welfare Foods (Entitlement)
  Health Authorities (Funding)
  Health Authorities (Funding)
  Drugs (Safety)
  Drugs (Safety)
  Departmental Staff (Assaults)
  Departmental Staff (Assaults)
  Limited List Prescribing
  Limited List Prescribing
  Human Embryos
  Human Embryos
  Croydon District Health Authority
  Croydon District Health Authority
  Abortion
  Abortion
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Doctors (Benefit Claims)
  Doctors (Benefit Claims)
  Kidney Patients
  Kidney Patients
  Ophthalmic Services
  Ophthalmic Services
  Supplementary Benefit Appeals
  Supplementary Benefit Appeals
  Fuel Bills
  Fuel Bills
  Housing Benefit
  Housing Benefit
  Benefit Claimants (Criminal Records)
  Benefit Claimants (Criminal Records)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Interest Relief
  Interest Relief
  EC Budget
  EC Budget
  Investment
  Investment
  National Economic Development Council
  National Economic Development Council
  Savings Certificates and Government Stock
  Savings Certificates and Government Stock
  Civil Service (Financial Incentives)
  Civil Service (Financial Incentives)
  EC (Own Resources)
  EC (Own Resources)
  Public Expenditure
  Public Expenditure
  Board of Inland Revenue
  Board of Inland Revenue
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  Capital Transfer Tax
  Capital Transfer Tax
  Married Man's Allowance
  Married Man's Allowance
  Personal Tax Allowances
  Personal Tax Allowances
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Orlit Houses
  Orlit Houses
  Strip Searches
  Strip Searches
  Benefits and Allowances
  Benefits and Allowances
  Pluralist Society
  Pluralist Society
  Security
  Security
  Farmers
  Farmers
  A-level Curriculum
  A-level Curriculum
  Scheduled Offences
  Scheduled Offences
  Remanded Persons
  Remanded Persons
  Housing Executive (Tenancies)
  Housing Executive (Tenancies)
  Shooting Incident (Belfast)
  Shooting Incident (Belfast)

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Chelmsford.

NHS Drugs: Pricing
Lord Hunter of Newington: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they intend to alter the method of payment to the pharmaceutical industry for drugs supplied to the National Health Service.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the Government have on several occasions endorsed the non-statutory Pharmaceutical Price Regulation Scheme as the preferred method of controlling the prices of medicines in the National Health Service.
Lord Hunter of Newington: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply, brief though it is. I ask him two supplementary questions. First, recognising that 50 per cent. of general practitioner costs are for pharmaceuticals, does he consider that the Binder Hamlyn Report should have been published, and why is there this indecent haste about a drug list? Secondly, does he believe that it will be possible for the industry to advertise unlisted drugs to National Health Service doctors?
The Earl of Caithness:My Lords, with regard to the noble Lord's first supplementary which referred to the Binder Hamlyn Report, I can add no more to the comment made to the House by my noble friend Lord Glenarthur on 4th November 1984. On the noble Lord's second point, I do not know what the regulations will contain. I do not see why the drugs that are not on the limited list cannot be advertised to doctors.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Secretary of State, by his constant changes in the Pharmaceutical Price Regulation Scheme, by his peremptory cuts in the drugs bill and now by his proposal, as referred to by the noble Lord, to introduce a limited list of drugs for prescribing by GPs, is threatening the research basis of the pharmaceutical industry in this country and has already deterred significant inward investment and damaged the export prospects of one of the most important and successful industries in Britain today?
The Earl of Caithness: No, my Lords, I cannot agree with the noble Lord. The final limited list, as he knows, is not yet complete because discussions are still taking place on the present list, but I gather that it is about 0.4 per cent. of worldwide drugs. I do not think that that will affect research in any way.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, will the Minister take this opportunity to clear up what I believe to be a misapprehension? Is he aware that there appear to be some people now in receipt of free drugs who are frightened that the Government intend either to deny them those drugs or to make them pay for them? Am I right in thinking that there is no such intention on the part of the Government?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we have had a very good discussion on the limited list drugs. While I should like to answer the noble Lord, I think he is taking us wide of the Question on the Order Paper. His noble colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, had a Question down on 15th January and also has an Unstarred Question on this specific point set down for 6th February.
Lord Northfield: My Lords, the drug industry is very sore at the unilateral actions of the Minister in recent months. In the case of the forthcoming discussions which the Minister proposes to hold about reducing profits to drug companies under the price regulation scheme, will the Minister give an assurance that on this occasion there will be full consultation with the industry rather than a unilateral decision? Secondly, will he assure us that the cost of research, which up to now has been funded under the agreement concerning the PPRS, will be taken into account?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord not only that there will be consultation but that there has been consultation.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, can the noble Earl say whether or not it is the Government's intention to restrict the profit margin of the pharmaceutical industry to that normally applied for other Government contractors? If that is the case, can he say whether the Government have taken into account the industry's representations on the whole question of quality control?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, of course the Government take into account all matters raised. As the noble Lord might be aware, the report of the Review Board for Government Contracts, which was published in March 1984, recommended a return of 16·9 per cent. on historic capital employed for companies with non-competitive Government contracts. The return for the pharmaceutical industry is 21 per cent.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, is it the Government's intention to extend the restricted list of drugs to the prison medical service? If it is, can the noble Earl tell the House whether the prescribing of paraldehyde by prison medical officers will be allowed to continue?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am afraid that I missed the first part of the noble Lord's supplementary question.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, is it the Government's intention to extend the use of this restricted list of drugs to the prison medical service as well as to general practitioners? If it is, can the noble Earl say whether

443
the practice of prescribing paraldehyde by prison medical officers will be allowed to continue?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, again, I am afraid that the noble Lord is taking us wide of the Question on the Order Paper—which was my reply to the noble Lord, Lord Grimond.
Lord Hunter of Newington: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House whether the Government are publishing a list of drugs which may be used in the National Health Service, or whether they are publishing a list, as has been reported in the newspapers, of drugs which may not be used in the National Health Service?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, again, I am afraid that we go back to the limited list. Until discussions are completed, which they will be at the end of this month, I cannot help the noble Lord further.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that I have not been pressing him on the limited list because there is an Unstarred Question down on that for, I believe, next week? However, I want to press him and ask whether he is aware of the seriousness of the situation? Is he aware that I can produce evidence not only of inward investment that is not now proceeding, but also of inward investment that has been cancelled by the drug industry, which is deeply concerned at the present situation? Does the Minister comprehend the importance of what is now happening as a result of these cutbacks?
The Earl of Caithness: Indeed, my Lords, we are concerned that the drug industry does not suffer. It is for that reason that we have held and will continue to hold negotiations with it.

Pound Coin: Colour
2.43 p.m.
Lord O'Neill of the Maine: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will consider giving a more golden colour to the pound coin, so that it ceases to look silver in artificial light.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, this was considered before the £1 coin was selected. Unfortunately, additions to make the coin more yellow also reduce its tarnish resistance.
Lord O'Neill of the Maine: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. May I ask him whether he appreciates that the Australians, whose coinage does not differ all that much from ours, have produced a golden dollar (which I now have in my hand) which is easily distinguishable from the rest of their coinage? It seems a pity that we did not follow in their footsteps.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I must admit, my Lords, that that is the first I have seen of the Australian coinage, including the Australian golden dollar. The reason why we chose this mix of alloys to make the coin—and this was very carefully considered before the choice was made—was that, unlike the old threepenny bit which was more yellow in colour, the new coin would not tarnish. With handling over a period of time, the coin will take on a more matt, greenish-yellow colour.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that, apart from the fact that I asked a similar Question about two or three months ago, we had a very good debate just before the House rose for Christmas in which, as far as I can remember, eight of the 10 speakers were completely against this coin and even the bankers who spoke were not particularly in favour of it? If I may ask a further supplementary question—if my noble friend the Chief Whip does not want me to (which I gather from his turning round) I shall sit down.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am well aware that we had an interesting debate, during which I was present thoughout. However, I must draw the noble Viscount's attention to the Question on the Order Paper, which is about the colour of the coin.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, does the noble Lord accept that I believe that the noble Lord, Lord O'Neill, has a very good point? I hope he will consider further what the noble Lord said. Further, does the Minister agree that it is not only the colour of the money that counts, but its value?
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Can the noble Lord say exactly what the Government are going to do about the catastrophic drop in the value of the pound abroad—
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: —and the savage increase of 2 per cent. in interest rates today?
Noble Lords: Order, order!
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Will he say what effect that 2 per cent. increase will have on our economy, and on local government in particular?
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Belstead): My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Leader of the House, I think that when we get to the moment when neither I nor the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, can be heard perhaps there is something wrong, and maybe the noble Lord is a little off the point of the original Question.
Lord Cottesloe: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the real requirement now is not for a £1 coin but for a £2 or even £3 coin?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, that is another Question altogether. I shall certainly draw the attention of my right honourable friend to that point.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, when the noble Lord—
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, on a point of order, I asked two questions. Even if the noble Lord the Deputy Leader of the House feels that my second question was out of order, my first certainly was not, and I should be obliged to have a reply.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord would remind me of the point of his first supplementary question.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Yes, indeed, my Lords. I was saying that the noble Lord, Lord O'Neill, had a very good point and that I hoped that, in view of what he said, the Minister would reconsider his Answer.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I cannot reconsider my Answer. As I said, a great deal of consideration went into choosing the material for the new coin, and I hope that I have given an explanation of why that choice was made.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, when the noble Lord said that with the passage of time the £1 coin would become a greenish-yellow colour, are we to infer that it will become mouldy? Secondly, the noble Lord, Lord O'Neill, who put the original Question, is quite right, but he omitted one point.
Lord Denham: Question!
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, should we not be considering, in addition to the problem of artificial light, those who have poor eyesight—I do not mean blind people—who will therefore have a job in identifying this coin?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am afraid I do not know exactly what the greenish-yellow colour that the coin will take on in time will look like until it comes about. As regards the problems of the blind, I understand that before the coin was introduced organisations for the blind were fully consulted, and the size, thickness and shape of the coin should help them.
Lady Kinloss: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether he is aware of two incidents that occurred in public houses in Yorkshire? In the first, two 5p pieces stuck together and passed as a £1 coin. In the other, what was thought to be a £1 coin was given in payment and only afterwards was it discovered to be made of lead.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I was not aware of those two instances. All I can say is that the material that is being used is extremely difficult to forge. Certainly any vending machine will readily reject a fake.
Lady Saltoun: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether the Australian dollar tarnishes?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, as I said to my noble friend before, it was the first I had seen of the Australian dollar.

Heathrow Underground Station: Luggage
2.50 p.m.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are satisfied with the arrangements for passengers' luggage at the Underground station at Heathrow airport.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the details of these arrangements are the responsibility of London Regional Transport. Having seen them for myself, I am reasonably satisfied that they are appropriate in the circumstances. LRT plan to introduce a new ticketing system for the Underground as a whole over the next few years and I understand that this will remove the need at Heathrow for tickets to be shown at the barrier, which will make for easier access. But LRT do not intend to allow airport trolleys on to the platforms.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, is it true that now nearly 6 million travellers journey to and from London Airport by the Underground? Is my noble friend aware of whether the authorities are paying sufficient attention to the need to reduce the hassle, the frustrations, the noise and the delays on the ground before one gets into the air? Would he draw their attention to the fact that the Swiss have long used trolleys which can be used up and down escalators with safety, speed and ease, and that this design has some merit where an escalator is part of the travellers' normal facilities?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I shall certainly take note of what my noble friend has said. However, I can say that LRT have no intention at the moment of allowing trolleys on to the platforms. The reasons for this are, first, that there is always a danger of their falling on to the line. The difference between here and Zurich is that Zurich has overhead power, whereas on the London Underground system there is a four-rail system. The other reason concerns the nature of the Underground system itself. The great attraction is that it gives ready access to all parts of London, and in the centre it becomes very busy. If passengers were allowed to enter the system with more luggage than they could readily handle, there could be difficulties for themselves and other passengers, and delays to the system, when they are getting off. I also understand that LRT encourage such passengers to use the air-bus services which allow time for luggage to be unloaded at the destination.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Lord the Minister aware that what his noble friend has asked and said is a reflection of the fact that already

447
too many people and too many aircraft use Heathrow? Will he bear this in mind in considering any development of airport facilities in the future?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, that is another Question. However, as the noble Lord will know, consideration is at the moment being given to the inspector's report.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, is the noble Lord the Minister aware that for many years we have had discussion on these matters without receiving any satisfaction from the Government of the day? May I ask him whether he realises that escalators are not the slightest use to passengers with luggage and that lifts are necessary? Furthermore, having seen how trolleys are conveyed at Frankfurt, where they can be taken down the escalators, and where I have not seen passengers throw trolleys on the lines in the way of the trains, I wonder whether it is not possible for such facilities to be looked at for Heathrow.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, it is certainly possible that they could be looked at; but I very much doubt whether the result of looking at it would be any different from what I have already said.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that some passengers arriving late at Heathrow due to delayed flights have no opportunity of using the air-bus? They are obliged to use the Tube only, as the bus services stop quite early, at about 10 o'clock. Is the noble Lord also aware that in using the Tube, even if passengers manage to get on at Heathrow, there is no way whatsoever of their getting off without inconvenience?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am afraid that I was not aware of the time that the bus system closed down. However, on the other point, I know that LRT are trying to do something about arrangements at stations in central London; but of course it would be inordinately expensive if we were to try to redesign the whole of the Underground system.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, is the noble Lord the Minister aware that there is widespread concern about the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing? Those of us who use the Tube service to Heathrow know this only too well. Would the noble Lord not also agree that it was excellent foresight and planning by the airports authority, the GLC and the former London Transport Executive in proceeding with the extension of the Underground into the fourth terminal so that the Tube will be ready when the fourth terminal comes into operation? However, can he say whether improved arrangements for the handling of luggage will be carried out for the extension of the Underground to the fourth terminal?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I certainly agree with the noble Lord that it is good that the Underground service is going to be extended to Terminal 4. I understand that at that terminal there will be lifts in operation and that the access to the
448
station will be on a gentle slope. There will be no escalators, but I am afraid that trolleys will still not be allowed on the platform.

Neighbourhood Watch Schemes
2.55 p.m.
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what progress has been made in setting up neighbourhood watch schemes.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Elton): My Lords, progress has been made since I answered a similar Question from the noble Baroness in November 1983. The Metropolitan Police and 28 other police forces in England and Wales and three in Scotland are now operating neighbourhood watch schemes, under that or other names, and a further two are planning to do so. Although precise details are not held centrally, I understand that there are at present some 3,000 individual schemes in existence around the country.
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that extremely encouraging reply as to the situation since I last asked about this at the end of 1983. Can he confirm that a number of the schemes are not only in cities? Can he also say how many police are involved in the schemes and how many police would be involved in combating crime if the schemes did not exist?
Lord Elton: My Lords, the schemes exist in a wide variety of environments. I believe that my noble friend is right to infer that they reduce the calls on the police force in ordinary policing, as an evaluation of the Kingsdown scheme in Bristol showed a drop in overall crime of 22 per cent. However, I cannot give the detailed figures for which my noble friend asks.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, given the importance of this development, can the noble Lord obtain some rather more accurate statistics than those he now has? In his reply to the noble Baroness he said that there were some 3,000 individual schemes. Is it not important that his department should be fully apprised of the details of these schemes so as to enable him to give more accurate answers to the House?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I appreciate what the noble Lord is saying. However, I am not sure that I can entirely accept it, because these are operational matters for the chief officers of the police forces concerned. I can say that in London, where the Home Secretary is the police authority, there are over 1,150 schemes in existence. But to be more precise than the round figure I have given for the rest of the country would, I think, be misleading at the present stage.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, the noble Lord said that these are operational matters for the chief officers concerned, but, with great respect, they are matters of great interest to the country as a whole and certainly should be of concern to his department. I ask him seriously, on behalf of the House, whether he will consult his right honourable and learned friend in order to obtain more accurate information about these schemes, not only in London but also in the country at large?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am sure that I can oblige the noble Lord and put a more accurate figure in the Library.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: My Lords, is not my noble friend aware that back in 1936 the late Lord Willingdon, and another gentleman started a watch scheme of this kind which developed into what probably is now the biggest security company in the country? If we were to compare the night watch schemes which that company now operates commercially throughout the country, they would make the few thousand watch schemes which we are talking about pale into insignificance. I should like to have it confirmed by my noble friend that the number of group patrols being carried out are of enormous help to the police.
Lord Elton: My Lords, we are not discussing patrolling, which is done by the police, except on private premises, to which my noble friend refers. We are talking about arrangements whereby local residents in a particular area keep an eye open for anything unusual or amiss and, if necessary, arrange swiftly to inform the police, and also very often mark their property with the local post code.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, if the Minister can give figures for Bristol, which apparently show a very spectacular reduction in the level of crime in that city, surely he must be able to collect the equivalent kind of statistics from the metropolis, where his right honourable friend is the police authority. Does he not think that it is his obligation to do so, if the savings in police time and the reduction in public expenditure on combating crime are anything like as remarkable as they have proved to be in Bristol?
Lord Elton: My Lords, the figure that the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, asked me to give was a figure for the number of schemes. The figure to which the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, refers is a figure for the supposed reduction in crime. The latter is much more difficult to arrive at. But the Home Office does, of course, keep an eye on the direction in which this method is going to see whether it should be further encouraged.
Lord Morris: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether there has been any increase in police—Metropolitan or otherwise—or, indeed, Governmental endeavour to watch the watch schemes?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am tempted, but I shall refrain from a terrible pun. We are watching it very closely.

Frigate Orders
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m., my noble friend Lord Trefgarne will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement to be made in another place on orders for frigates.

Mineral Workings Bill
3.1 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Avon, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
This is a short but technical Bill which has two purposes. Both purposes concern former mineral workings but are otherwise unrelated. The first purpose is to wind up the Ironstone Restoration Fund now that so few sites are being worked for ironstone in England and virtually all of these are under the control of the British Steel Corporation. The second is to make it possible for local authorities to get on to land quickly and to take remedial action where they believe that subsidence may occur because the surface has been made unstable by former underground mineral working.
I will talk first about the Ironstone Restoration Fund. That was set up under the 1951 Mineral Workings Act to deal with the growing dereliction in the Midlands ironstone field. Dereliction by the opencast working of ironstone became a problem from about 1914 onwards, when the shallower seams of ore began to be exhausted and operators were driven to work the deeper seams. Restoration of the deeper workings was, of course, a very much more difficult and costly operation and, sadly, many of the smaller, less responsible operators, simply took their profits and ran, leaving a trail of dereliction behind them.
The fund operates only within the ironstone district, which broadly corresponds to the Midlands ironstone field, and has three main functions: first, to meet the full cost of reclaiming land which had been left derelict or inadequately restored by 1950; secondly, to assist with the prompt restoration of future workings by contributing to the cost of levelling and spreading top soil; and, lastly, to help owners and occupiers of restored land to return it to agricultural or forestry use.
The fund has proved remarkably successful. Over the past 30 years, all the pre-1950s dereliction has been reclaimed and all but the most recent workings since that date have been returned to beneficial after use. It has almost, but not quite, completed its task. The problem now is that the fund is virtually bankrupt. Aside from a very small Exchequer contribution, the fund depends for its income on contributions made by the operators based on a levy of 7p (pence) per ton of ore extracted. The House will be aware that the demand for locally dug ironstone has reduced dramatically over the past 20 years. That has meant that the income to the fund has been drastically reduced at a time when an increasing number of quarry closures made accelerated demands on its resources.
The British Steel Corporation is now the only operator contributing to the fund. And, for a number of years, the fund has only been able to meet its

451
commitments to private landowners, local authorities and others because BSC has voluntarily waived its own legal right to make often very substantial claims for the restoration of land which it had an operator's obligation to restore.
This year, even that has not been enough and BSC has had to make substantial voluntary donations of money—over and above the required operator's levy—in order to keep the fund afloat. It has already given £266,000 and will need to give more to meet claims expected to arise before 31st March 1985. Without BSC's assistance, the fund would already be insolvent and it is estimated that the statutory contributions from BSC and the Exchequer would have to be supplemented by a further £600,000 just to keep the fund afloat until 31st March 1987, which is the end of the current PESC period.
Clauses 1 to 3 and 6 contain provisions to wind up the fund, to transfer its assets to BSC and to make general housekeeping arrangements to tidy up its final account. Clauses 4 and 5 make transitional arrangements for the aftercare and afforestation of ironstone land in recognition of the fact that few owners, whose land will have been restored before the abolition of the fund, still have legitimate expectations from it in respect of the return of their land to agricultural or forestry use.
Clause 4 is intended to enable the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to honour arrangements made with landowners under Section 20 of the 1951 Act to bring land to,
"a good state of cultivation and fertility",
so that it can be returned to agricultural use. His expenses in so doing are, under present arrangements, defrayed out of the fund. Clause 4 requires that those expenses shall be met, for a transitional period, by the British Steel Corporation. All the arrangements to which this clause applies will, of course, have had to be made before Section 20 is repealed. Where they relate to the aftercare of land restored before 1st January 1984, the arrangements may persist until completion or until 31st March 1990, whichever is the earlier. Where restoration was completed after 1st January 1984, the arrangements may persist for whatever period is specified in the formal agreement.
Clause 5 makes transitional arrangements for land which is to be returned to forestry. Under Section 25(1) of the 1951 Act, the Forestry Commissioners may make a special grant at an agreed rate to assist with the return of worked ironstone land to a condition suitable for forestry. Their expenses are currently defrayed out of the Ironstone Restoration Fund. Clause 5 will require BSC to reimburse the commissioners' expenses in making the special ironstone grant up until 31st March 1990, provided that the corporation and the Ironstone Royalty Owners' Association have been consulted about the rate at which the grant has been paid.
Those, then, are the ironstone provisions. In essence, they are very little more than a sensible regularisation of a situation which already exists. The Bill anticipates that the fund can be wound up and the new arrangements put in place in time for the British
452
Steel Corporation to take on its new responsibilities at the beginning of the next financial year.
I turn now to the second purpose of the Bill, which is contained in Clauses 7 and 8. Those clauses give local authorities a compulsory power to enter land to survey, monitor and carry out reclamation works—without the owners' consent—where subsidence has occurred or is likely to occur as a result of former underground mineral workings.
Any proposal to introduce a compulsory power to intrude upon private land without the consent of the owner or occupier must be given serious consideration, and I owe it to the House to explain the position carefully. There are a number of areas which are underlain by old mineral workings. That is why we propose that these powers should apply throughout England and Wales. The most immediate need, however, arises in those parts of the West Midlands which are extensively undermined by old limestone workings. Noble Lords may recall that in 1978 subsidence over deep workings in Sandwell caused substantial damage to buildings on an industrial estate. Since then, there have been other less dramatic, but potentially dangerous, incidents. Inevitably, there is considerable concern in the area and action needs to be taken to restore confidence and avoid blight.
My Department, along with the Dudley, Sandwell and Walsall borough councils and the West Midlands county council, commissioned Ove Arup and Partners to carry out a comprehensive study to determine the nature and scale of the problem. Their report, published in 1983, identified a number of areas which were thought previously not to be at risk and highlighted the degree of uncertainty about the precise extent and condition of many of the workings. An action programme under the derelict land reclamation scheme is now under way. Obviously, the authorities need to have access to sites which may be at risk and the co-operation of owners and occupiers is needed. I have no doubt that this will be given in the vast majority of cases. However, some difficulty has already been experienced because of the natural reluctance or the absence of the person concerned.
Delay could put not only the owner's land at risk but also that of his neighbour. That is why, when and only when, urgent action is necessary in the interests of public safety, it needs the backing of the new power.
Clause 7 contains this power of compulsory entry. It only applies where a local authority have used, are using, or are considering whether to use, their power under Section 89(2) of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 to carry out works on any land for the purpose of reclaiming, improving or bringing into use land underlain by abandoned underground mining operations, other than coal. The clause contains elaborate safeguards for both owner and occupier of the land to which entry is needed. It also contains important provisions to compensate people for loss, damage or disturbance.
Clause 8 provides the power compulsorily to carry out works for the purpose of reclaiming, improving or bringing into use land under which underground mining operations have ceased. The House will have noticed that subsection (3) lists certain conditions which have to be met if the local authority are to be

453
able to carry out those works without consent of all the persons interested in the land. The situation must be urgent; the surface must have collapsed or be in imminent danger of collapse; and the works have to be urgently necessary because of the risk of death or injury to persons or damage to other land or other property. As with Clause 7, there are safeguards for persons interested in the land, and compensation provisions are made for damage, depreciation, loss or disturbance. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Skelmersdale.)
3.12 p.m.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, first, I should like to thank the Minister for explaining this Bill so clearly and also so briefly. It is certainly not the type of Bill which is going to get high television ratings, but nevertheless its importance is very much greater than perhaps the interest displayed in it generally would appear to suggest. The Bill expresses an intention which all interested parties—these include local authorities, the British Steel Corporation, geological and environmental groups—support; and my colleagues and I on these Benches agree that, although some details may need to be clarified and perhaps adjusted, the Bill is one which should be widely welcomed.
As the noble Lord the Minister has explained, the purpose is two-fold. As he pointed out, the first part of the Bill concerns the winding-up of the Ironstone Restoration Fund which had been set up under the 1951 Mineral Workings Act. The decline in ironstone working has seen a concomitant fall in the income of the fund while the financial pressures of agricultural after-care and afforestation continue unabated. As the Minister has told us, the fund, as it was expressed on the Second Reading in another place, is teetering on the brink of bankruptcy, and without the contribution from British Steel it would indeed be bankrupt.
If, by transferring the assets of the fund to the British Steel Corporation, the continued improvement of land decimated by ironstone workings is secured, then that is a useful exercise. But of course any change in the system of financing is bound to worry those who benefit under the present system. Clauses 4 and 5, which the Minister spelt out, are intended to allay those fears by setting up transitional schemes to deal with existing arrangements concerning land being returned to agricultural use and to forestry.
During the course of the consideration of this Bill in another place the Government showed very welcome flexibility. For example, it was agreed that the level of payments of grants for afforestation should be subject to consultation with the Ironstone Royalty Owners' Association as well as the Forestry Commissioners and the British Steel Corporation. Can the noble Lord explain, therefore, why there can be no statutory provision for the annual review of these special grants, despite assurances in the other place that an annual review would indeed take place? This particular discussion in another place was on Report, on 9th January this year, as reported at col. 876.
We constantly have discussions and debates, on other pieces of legislation, about whether or not things
454
should be on the face of the Bill. It does make a great difference. As I know the Minister and other noble Lords are aware, a report in Hansard carries no weight at all when it comes to the courts and any reference is made to it. All it does is spell out the inclination of the Government at that time. It does not have any value in law or in legislation. Either it should be on the face of the Bill or there should be some form of regulation or even a circular to make this absolutely clear. I do not think we are convinced that "subject to annual review" should not be included in the legislation. I should be grateful if the Minister would reply to that.
The transitional arrangements are due to end five years after their introduction—that is, in 1990—unless the restoration work happened not to be completed until after 1st January 1984. If this is the case, then the British Steel Corporation's financial liability can be extended by arrangement. But what I should like to ask is: what will happen if subsidence occurs in an ironstone area after 1990 and it is recorded that reclamation work had been completed before January 1984? Is this a gap which is being left and is it a trap which some people could fall into without being aware of it at the time? I wonder if it is something the Government should be looking at.
During the Committee stage in another place, the Minister's answer to that question was that there might be a longer-term problem which the Government and local authorities would have to work together to overcome. Can the noble Lord explain what sort of provision is to be made with regard to this potential longer-term problem? Will it involve, for instance, any financial burden on the local authorities? I would point out that the resources of local authorities are already wildly overstretched, and it is here that the situation will get worse and not better. Is it not true that the Bill as it stands has removed the right of local authorities to seek central Government reimbursement for reclamation work done on land left derelict since before July 1950? Schedule 2 repeals the sections which provide for central Government reimbursement to local authorities for the restoration of land left derelict before July 1950. This is of some importance. The repeals in Schedule 2 take away this right and then there will be nothing left to fall back on. I wish the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, were here, because this is one of his particular subjects and I am sure he would be making this point far better than I can myself.
This was a point raised by the Member for Kettering in another place. It is causing great anxiety to the Northamptonshire County Council and to other county councils which are also concerned about it. As I understand it, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary is supposed to be visiting Northamptonshire today. If he is, then maybe it is too soon to get a signal from him. Perhaps the Minister can tell us if he is on his way there, if he is back, or if he has a further date if this one was not taken up. This is a very important part of the Bill and I think that Schedule 2 should be looked at very carefully once again. It always worries me when I see all these repeals. An awful lot of sections of the 1951 Act are wiped out and, if the Bill goes through, there will be very little left of it.
Clauses 7 and 8, to which the Minister has referred, embody the second intention of the Bill. Clause 7

455
allows local authorities to enter land to survey, monitor or carry out reclamation works where subsidence has occurred or is likely to occur as a result of former underground mineral workings. Clause 8, which was introduced during Committee in another place, allows similar work to be carried out without the consent of the owner or occupier where it has been impossible, for various reasons, to obtain that consent. These important new local authority powers are rightly extended by the Bill to all areas and not only to the ironstone district set out in Schedule 1. This was opposed by some Members on the Government side in another place, but we on this side agree entirely with the Government that the powers are essential if the Bill is to be made to work properly.
However, it seems that what the Bill does not specify is the problem of Crown lands. These are not included at all. The Minister said in Committee in another place at col. 18 of the Official Report for 4th December 1984 that despoliation from tin mining on Crown lands would "have to be handled by separate arrangement". Will the Minister clarify the thinking of his department on this point, since it is of grave concern to areas such as Cornwall and Wales?
Finally, I should like to ask one further question. The Bill is quite specific: the first part deals only with the ironstone district and ironstone workings. Could the noble Lord look beyond the scope of the Bill before us and say what happens in the case of land despoiled by, for instance, limestone workings? Will there be any compensation related to the improvement of these areas? In other words, how does this Bill, which is quite a small Bill in itself, fit into what I describe rather highly as the Government's grand scheme of things or of life in this country, or, indeed of finance? How will they deal with it? Do they have a place for it? Do they expect it to be extended in other areas?
Having said that, and in the hope of obtaining answers to the points that I have raised, I should like to offer our support for this measure.
3.21 p.m.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, I wish to congratulate the Minister on the clear and competent way in which he presented the Bill. In order to save time, let me say that I should be interested to study the answers which will be given to most of the matters that have been raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Birk. In some respects this so-called short and technical Bill is exceptional from a drafting point of view and, perhaps, from a constitutional point of view, and I say that for the following reason. Its first six clauses deal with a very narrow power, but it then introduces two clauses which have far greater and wider powers. Therefore, as a matter of pure drafting, it is unusual. It is usual for a Bill to have general clauses at the beginning and for those clauses then to be followed by the narrow powers. But in this particular case the reverse is true. It is worth considering the powers that the Bill contains.
First, there is the narrow power to deal with problems arising in respect of one form of mineral extraction; namely, that related to limestone and iron workings and production in a narrow geographical part of the country. So narrow is the power that the
456
areas concerned are spelt out parish by parish in Schedule 1 to the Bill. However, the second power arises in Clauses 7 and 8. It is much more general and applies to every area with underground mines throughout England and Wales, excluding coal mines. If I recall correctly, the noble Lord the Minister did not quite make it clear, at any rate to me, that this Bill is not concerned with the underground workings of coal mines. I may have misunderstood him, but I should like to emphasise that it has nothing to do with coal mines. I suppose it can be said by the Minister from a narrow legal point of view that, if one considers Clause 10, it could be inferred that the Bill does apply to the general power to which I have referred.
Clauses such as Clauses 7 and 8 introduce a new power to enter land. Such power, of course, is of obvious public importance and natural concern, and requires the most careful consideration. It is essential to safeguard the interests of all people relating to such land. When I read the Bill I must confess that I thought it was concerned only with ironstone workings. I consoled myself in having made that error by the fact that in another place the chairman of the All-Party Minerals Group (of which I happen to have the privilege of being a member), the Member for North Bedfordshire, felt that this Bill, when he first read it, was concerned only with ironstone workings. Therefore, it seems to me that one general aspect in relation to this Bill is that it should be made clearer that Clauses 7 and 8 apply to the whole of England and Wales.
I am not going to press this point, particularly as the Minister in the other place, at column 18 of Hansard for 4th December last year, explained why in his view it was essential to have this general power tacked on to the very narrow power in the first part of the Bill. He said:
"We face serious problems which affect many people and could affect a far wider franchise in this country. We could find that many millions of people are affected by former mineral workings. The predominant problem has been identified, but it could develop even further".
That passage may emphasise the point that was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, about the powers of compensation of local authorities.
I now turn to two or three small points in relation to the scope of Clauses 7 and 8. Clause 7 is the clause which deals with the power to enter former mining land. The point that I wish to make is this. When you study subsections (1), (2) and (3) of that clause, is the definition of "land" and also "relevant works" adequate for the purposes which the Government have in mind? It is a somewhat complex question, and in this context I have given consideration to the scope of Section 29 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 and also to the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, particularly Section 290. I apologise to the noble Lord the Minister that I did not give him prior notice of this matter, but no doubt he will be able to deal with it—if he thinks that it is worth dealing with—later on.
The point is that where mining operations have taken place there will be surfaces of the land which have been used but which have not been directly undermined; that is, not in danger of collapse, as is emphasised so much in the course of the Bill. There

457
may also be things like railway lines, ancillary buildings and places where extracted materials may have caused damage. In this connection, if we look at the definition in Clause 9 of "worked ironstone land", it says that that means:
"land which has been excavated in the course of winning and working ironstone by opencast operations, and includes land on which materials extracted in the course of such operations have been deposited".
Therefore, in so far as the definition of "land" is concerned, I ask whether the Government are satisfied that their powers under the Bill can be directed towards the land which has been otherwise used and has not been directly undermined. The same point arises under Clause 8(1), (2) and (3).
I turn to the question of compensation. As the Minister has stated, under Clause 7(11) compensation is given to the person interested in the land, and it is defined in the following way:
"Where in consequence of an exercise of the power to enter land conferred by this section any damage is caused to land or chattels, or any loss occurs in relation to chattels, the local authority authorising the entry shall pay …".
When one turns to Clause 8(9), which is the compensation subsection, one sees that to some extent the scope of compensation is different, because there it says:
"Where in consequence of the carrying out of works as mentioned in subsection (2) above any damage is caused to land or chattels, or any depreciation of the value of an interest in land occurs, or any loss occurs in relation to chattels",
and then the compensation subsection continues as before. In this part of the Bill, for compensation under Clause 8 there is inserted a power to claim compensation not merely for the damage caused or the loss in relation to chattels, but also for depreciation of the value of an interest in land. Therefore, I would tentatively suggest that an amendment might be considered to the effect that the words:
"any depreciation of the value of an interest in land occurs"
should also be included in the corresponding subsection dealing with compensation in Clause 7; that is, subsection (11).
I have not referred to another subsection which deals with compensation and which refers to disturbance arising from the enjoyment of the land or chattels. However, both the subsections in Clauses 7 and 8 are identical, whereas the words which I have quoted regarding the loss arising from depreciation in land have not been included in Clause 7(11).
As I understood him, the Minister was good enough to say that a survey had been made in relation to this problem. I have not had an opportunity to see it, but I wonder whether he would be able to say that the survey has dealt with some of the problems with regard to mining operations in parts of Wales. I have particularly in mind certain lead mines in areas in Cardiganshire, not far from Aberystwyth. It would be interesting to know as a matter of information whether that survey covers Wales.
3.34 p.m.
Lord Middleton: My Lords, I do not think I share the worry expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, about the fact that the provisions dealing
458
with the powers of entry to come on to land where there are dangerous holes have been tacked on to the ironstone provisions. I propose to confine my very brief remarks to the ironstone provisions. As my noble friend has just reminded us, the main purpose of the Bill is to wind up the Ironstone Restoration Fund. This seems to be perfectly reasonable now that the working of ironstone in the ironstone district has virtually ceased.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to interrupt him. If he is saying that the Bill is mainly concerned with the winding up of the fund and not with the very important powers given under Clauses 7 and 8, I should have thought that he would have had some sympathy with what I had to say.
Lord Middleton: My Lords, I was quoting from the Bill itself when I said that the main purpose of the Bill is to repeal the provisions of the two Acts. The Bill contains six clauses to deal with that and two to deal with the other matter. As we have heard, the fund was set up under the Mineral Workings Act 1951 to finance the restoration of worked land and to make grants for drainage and other works necessary to bring the land back into agricultural and forestry use. Contributions to the fund were made jointly by the landowners, the Treasury and the mineral operators. Technically, the restoration of land that had been stripped of its soil and then worked for iron ore presented owners with all sorts of problems, some of which, as I think the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, said, may not be fully overcome by the proposed cut-off date. Nevertheless, it is my understanding that the owners, while accepting that the purposes of the fund to which they have contributed over the years have broadly been fulfilled, have been anxious to ensure that the Government were fully aware of the inherently unstable nature of restored land.
When the Bill was introduced in another place and subsequently in Committee, certain proposals were made in order to ensure the fairest possible arrangements with respect to the funding of the aftercare of restored land. Here and now I should like to pay tribute to the very helpful and understanding way in which the Minister and his department have listened to these proposals.
Amendments have been made to the Bill and undertakings given, so that the Bill as we see it this afternoon disposes of the principal worries of the owners concerned. First, there has been what, in effect, is an extension of the transitional period during which grants for aftercare will be financed by the British Steel Corporation from five years to six and a quarter years for land restored after 1st January 1984.
Secondly, grants, while funded by the British Steel Corporation, will, in effect, continue to function through MAFF and through the Forestry Commission. Thirdly, by amending the Bill the Government have accepted that the rate of Section 25 payments—these are the afforestry payments—should continue to be reviewed under the existing system of consultation between the owners, the Forestry Commission and the BSC. The Minister has given an assurance that such a review will be an annual one.

459
The noble Baroness would have preferred to have seen this assurance embodied in the Bill. I read what the Minister said at the Third Reading of the Bill in another place, and I, too, did not quite understand why he could not have included it in the Bill. He did not really explain.
I was interested when the noble Baroness said that there remains the question of instability of restored land in the future. For example, what happens when a drainage scheme installed before or during the transitional period becomes damaged by subsidence after the cut-off date of 1st April 1990? If Mr. Macfarlane is visiting the Corby area today, no doubt he will be able to see on the ground examples of the kind of problem which might arise under this heading. I shall wait with interest to hear later, if not today, what my noble friend can tell me on this remaining point, which is worrying the restorers of land which has yielded up its underlying raw material and which now must become productive again, and which must continue to be productive.
3.39 p.m.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, before the noble Lord replies, I wonder whether I might ask just one question. The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, said that certain parts of the Bill applied very narrowly. Nevertheless, there are parts of our country and certain counties that are very importantly affected, and the importance did not come over in what the noble Lord had to say.
I cannot understand why the Parliamentary Under-Secretary has chosen to visit the sites concerned on this very day of Second Reading. Why was this particular day chosen? Would it not have been better for the Parliamentary Under-Secretary to have studied the problems on site before Second Reading? Would not that have placed the noble Lord in a better position to answer questions? Alternatively, could we not have put back this Second Reading a day or two until the noble Lord had had the benefit of the observations of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary? I should be grateful if the noble Lord could explain the reasoning, and if he could assure us it was not an underestimation of the importance of these problems to the Northamptonshire County Council.

Frigate Orders
3.40 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I should like to repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence about Royal Navy frigate orders. The Statement is as follows:
"As the House knows, I have been considering the results of a tendering exercise for two Type 22 frigates for the Royal Navy. Cammell Laird, Swan Hunter and Vosper Thornycroft were each invited to tender for these warships; one, the fourth replacement for warships lost in the South Atlantic, and the other an addition to the naval programme which I authorised in 1983.
460
"The tendering process has been unusually protracted for several reasons. I have been concerned to obtain the best available prices and tauter contract terms than we have been accustomed to in this field of defence procurement. The earlier tender replies did not adequately contribute to this objective, and it was not possible to take a decision on the order before the validity of the tenders expired. A final round of tendering was initiated in late July last year. The results of this round met several of the concerns to which I have referred; and, as with the earlier rounds, showed that the competition had been close and keenly fought.
"The House will be aware that the decision on the orders for these frigates has important implications for each of the competing yards. I have considered these implications carefully in consultation with my ministerial colleagues.
"At this point, I should say that the deplorable and unnecessary industrial action which occurred last summer at Cammell Laird would, as I made clear at the time, had it continued, have excluded the yard from further consideration in the competition. The courage and determination shown by the moderate elements of the workforce at Cammell Laird, in the face of the intimidatory behaviour of their former work colleagues, has averted the almost certain closure of the yard at an early date.
"The cheapest solution from the point of defence procurement would be to place the order for both ships with one yard; but in the light of the wider and relevant factors involved, I have decided that an order for one Type 22 frigate will be placed with Cammell Laird and for the second with Swan Hunter, and I am prepared to authorise the necessary expenditure. This offers the prospect of survival of Cammell Laird as a major warshipbuilder; without such a contract the yard would have closed. I hope that the yard will succeed in obtaining other business in the short as well as the long-term.
"Swan Hunter, which is a much larger firm and is implementing a large redundancy programme at the moment, could face further substantial redundancies even with the order which I have just announced. The Government wish to do what they reasonably can to prevent this. Last autumn, we embarked on the construction of a new class of frigate, the Type 23, and negotiated a first order at Yarrow on the Clyde. I have decided to negotiate an order for the second Type 23 frigate at Swan Hunter as soon as this can sensibly be done, and subject to satisfactory agreement on price and other contract terms. I will expect the price for this frigate to reflect the economies obtainable with an order for two frigates rather than one and to be competitive. In order to establish this, tenders will be invited for the third Type 23 order in the same timescale from all United Kingdom yards capable of carrying out the work."
My Lords, that is the Statement.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, may I thank the Minister for repeating in this House the Statement which has just been made in the other place. The

461
Minister is aware from Questions which have been tabled by Members of Parliament with constituency interests of the continuing interest in both Houses as to the outcome. From these Benches may I say that in the two yards that will receive the orders it is a satisfactory outcome to what the Minister has said has been a protracted period. The Minister is aware that the considerations of employment are crucial. Although the Minister talks in terms of several reasons, I wonder whether he could tell us the extent to which regard was paid to the consequences of placing the orders in one place or another so far as employment is concerned?
The Minister in the Statement refers to "tauter contract terms". Do I understand that "tauter" is in fact another word for "tighter", and that in actual fact the scrutiny and the need to comply to specifications have been as tightly drawn as possible? Can the Minister tell us whether any corners have been cut in the precise specifications when that has taken place?
I note the strictures which the Minister lays—and I would have said fairly—on the performance at Cammell Laird during 1984. It appears to me that all concerned at Cammell Laird will breath a sigh of relief that they have the opportunity of a reprieve or a new opportunity in the light of what has taken place here. Coming from Tyneside, I certainly welcome the action of the Minister and his colleagues in placing one of the orders with Swan Hunter. Tyneside is an area which is deeply in trouble from unemployment and difficulties in the shipbuilding industry.
Is the Minister able to tell us anything further to the Answer that his Parliamentary colleague, the Under-Secretary in another place, gave to Mr. Dalyell on 11th January (at col. 561 of Hansard) where the Minister then said:
"The average cost of a batch 111 type 22 frigate is currently estimated at about £140 million"
and that there are other factors, too, making it in excess of 150 million. In a tauter specification and satisfactory terms are we talking about that kind of figure at this particular time?
Would the Minister care to say a little more about the causes for the delay? The Minister lays much of that on the inability to get proper specifications within a budget, and secondly on the conditions in the shipyards. I wonder whether it has anything to do with the escalating costs of the Trident programme and the need for the Minister and his colleagues to try to keep within their overall budgets?
Can the Minister assure the House that in no way will these frigates or any other vessel of a similar ilk suffer from the need of the Government to keep within the overall defence budget despite the escalating costs of Trident and other factors? Finally, may I say that this is perhaps one of the most benign Statements that the Minister will ever have the opportunity of presenting to the House; and so far as we are concerned on this side there is a great deal in it that we welcome. It is a satisfactory Statement.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, is the Minister aware that my noble friends and I will have a more jaundiced view of his Statement than the noble Lord, Lord Graham? Would he say first whether these regrettable delays mean that the Government can only maintain
462
the destroyer and frigate fleet at its promised level of 50 ships by keeping in service frigates which would otherwise have been retired? Will he answer a question about the phrase which refers to ordering "the second Type 23 … as soon as" the Government sensibly can? Does this mean that they will not order the second Type 23 frigate until after the normal period of testing of the first Type 23, the first of its class? Will he say in which years the second and third Type 23 will be ordered? Finally will the noble Lord tell us what progress the Government have made in their discussions for a standard NATO frigate design for the mid-1990s?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords. As for the questions put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Graham, I can tell him that the social considerations—if I may call them that—while not paramount, certainly loomed pretty large in our considerations of this particular contract, or these two contracts as they now are. I can confirm that we have certainly cut no corners in reaching the specification and the contractual terms of these two ships. That would certainly be a reprehensible action to take and we of course would have none of that.
As for price, the figure that the noble Lord offered of about £140 million is in the right ball park. I can confirm that. The noble Lord will know that we do not go into detail on the prices, but I can see no harm in confirming the approximate figure which he has put to me. I can confirm to the noble Lord that these contracts have no relevance to the Trident project to which he referred. That is a quite separate matter. Proper budgetary provision will be made for both these contracts and for the Trident programme.
In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, I can tell him that we plan to place the order for the second and third Type 23 frigates about the beginning of next year: that will be before the first Type 23 frigate comes into service. That was ordered in October last year so we shall not have the benefit of the trials programme when we place the order. However, to have to wait all that length of time would put the date upon which we placed the order for the second and third Type 23s some further distance into the future. We would be very reluctant to do that. Those were the principal points put to me by noble Lords.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, in view of the delays that have taken place in the delivery of previous ships, can my noble friend say whether the tauter contract terms to which he referred include stiff penalties for failure to deliver to date? Secondly, can he tell the House what was the saving forgone—in my view, rightly—by placing the orders for the two Type 23 ships in different yards?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, my noble friend puts his finger on the principal point that we have sought to correct in seeking the so-called tauter terms in our contractual arrangements: that is, to get punctual delivery at the time, at the price and to the specification stipulated in the contract. There is a small sum involved in going to two separate yards rather than in placing the order for both ships at one yard. Perhaps my noble friend will allow me to write to him with the figure.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, may I add my thanks to those expressed by my noble friend on the Front Bench to the Minister for repeating the Statement which has been made in another place? More particularly, I thank the Minister for the fact that Cammell Laird will obtain one of these orders. This is not the time to debate the worthwhileness of giving Cammell Laird an order for a frigate. However, taken against the background of the problems that Merseyside has had, it is not surprising that occasionally there is industrial trouble there. An objective study of the industrial troubles on Merseyside by any fair minded person would show that it is not the only place which has industrial problems. Compared with some other places in the country, including the South-East, the record is pretty good. Having said that, it would be churlish, as a Merseysider, not to express my gratitude, which I am sure is echoed all over Merseyside today, for the placing of the order there. I am sure that the tribute paid by the Minister to the moderate element in Merseyside will be well justified and that Merseyside will return a good job on time.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that intervention. The efforts of the moderate elements in the workforce at Cammell Laird have indeed resulted in the placing of this order.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, will the noble Lord answer the first question that I asked and reassure the House that these delays will not mean any threat to the Government's pledged fleet of 50 destroyers and frigates? Will he agree that this will not be maintained simply by keeping on ships that otherwise should retire from service?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I can confirm that it remains the Government's policy to provide a fleet of about 50 destroyers and frigates, as the noble Lord knows. The orders that we have announced today, which we have foreshadowed for next year, will contribute to that fleet, and there will be more frigates and destroyers ordered in the future.
Lord Roberthall: My Lords, I wish to ask the Minister just one question. In view of the competition involved, am I right in thinking that these are contracts which will not be subject to reference to the review board on Government contracts?
Lord Trefgarne: I see no reason why they should be, my Lords.

Mineral Workings Bill
3.56 p.m.
Second Reading debate resumed.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I hope that the House will consider that it is appropriate to return to the Second Reading of the Mineral Workings Bill.
I have listened very carefully to all the speeches that have been made. I will read them equally carefully in the Official Report tomorrow. But I should start by agreeing with the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, that this
464
small but important Bill will not hit many headlines, either visual or verbal. However this should not be seen as making it unimportant in any way.
The first purpose of the Bill which has been widely accepted is to wind up the Ironstone Restoration Fund and is a limited measure. We are all agreed that over the past 30 years the fund has made a valuable contribution to the reclamation of worked ironstone land in the Midlands field. I think however that most of us equally accept that, with the rundown of ironstone workings in this country, the fund has served its purpose and should now be wound up.
I was asked a number of questions and I shall run through them roughly in order. First, the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, asked me why there are no statutory provisions in the Bill for an annual review and whether there should be. There are technical difficulties about including statutory provision for an annual review in Clause 4. The purpose of the clause is to define the extent of the British Steel Corporation's responsibility. The insertion of an annual review provision would only have the effect of limiting BSC's responsibility, not of requiring that a review be conducted. I understand that the Ironstone Royalty Owners' Association has been given a written assurance from both BSC and the Forestry Commission that the rate of grant will be subject to annual review, so it is not just in the Official Report but the commitment will be in the papers of those two very important bodies.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, there are a number of points which I know the noble Minister has to answer before he goes on to others, but I should like him to deal with this because it was a point supported also by his noble friend Lord Middleton. We are now discussing this Bill in your Lordships' House but it started in another place. I ask the Minister to take this back to see whether it is possible to include this matter. We are all used to the technical reasons—I was trying to find a more felicitous word than "excuse", but that will do for a moment—for not including items on the face of a Bill. This is important. It does not involve putting in a special sum, but saying "subject to annual review". With great respect, assurance in writing to the Ironstone Royalty Owners' Association has, from my point of view, exactly the same small amount of impact as its being in Hansard. I am not accusing the Government of deciding maliciously to do or not to do something, but I should like to see it in the Bill. I should like to feel that this point will be considered again.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I should be the first to concede that a commitment by one Government is not binding on a successor Government. Most certainly I shall undertake, as I thought I had already, to consider and read most carefully the Official Report tomorrow and decide what action to take about the various points that have been raised.
The noble Baroness also asked me what would be the position after 1990 about subsidence. She is quite right. Where the position relates to the after-care of land restored before 1st January 1984 the arrangements may persist until completion or until 31st March 1990, whichever is the earlier. The cut-off date

465
has been set at the end of March 1990; that is five years from the introduction of the transitional arrangements. In passing Section 5 of the Minerals Act 1981 Parliament has already accepted that five years is a reasonable after-care period. In this case we are being even more generous than we were in the Minerals Act 1981 by making it six years.
Several noble Lords raised the question of the visit today to Northamptonshire by my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary who looks after these matters. My honourable friend's visit was arranged because of a commitment that he gave in another place at Committee stage that he would visit that part of the country to get an appreciation of the problems of people working limestone from old ironstone planning consents. He would like to look at hill and dale forestry restoration, too, and would like to see examples of subsidence. He has just, within the last hour or so, returned from his visit, and I should tell the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, that there is no sinister motive in any of this and, certainly, no disrespect to your Lordships' House or to Northamptonshire or any other council. It was in response to a question in Committee in another place, and today was chosen because it jointly suited both his hosts and my honourable friend's diary and was well before the usual channels had discussed the date of this debate in your Lordships' House. No ulterior motive should be assigned to this particular day.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, I readily acquit everyone concerned of sinister motives, but if it was fixed some time ago, would it have been beyond the wit of the planners of business here to have delayed the Second Reading until his report had been received?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am sure that nothing would be beyond the wit of the usual channels, but the usual channels did not consider the noble Lord's point. If he had been in a position to make it earlier, no doubt it would have been considered. The noble Baroness, Lady Birk, asked about Crown land as it might or might not be affected by the provisions of this Bill. I have to tell her that Crown land is outside the scope of the Bill because it would be necessary to look at each case on Crown land if and when it arises; but it is likely that the spirit of the Bill will be followed in any case. It would sometimes, I suggest to her, be difficult to justify a power of compulsory entry to such as defence or prison lands. I see that the noble Baroness is nodding and I think that perhaps she understands that.
The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, asked me a number of questions. I must say that I wondered whether at one point he was not fishing a little. Of course, there is no harm in fishing so long as he is not using lead weights, which of course the noble Lord is not prone to do. He was asking about the differences in the compensation provisions of Clauses 7(11) and 8(9). I must confess that I may have been just a little at fault here in not providing notes on clauses quite as early as I might have done; but I can undertake that they will be in the Printed Paper Office for your Lordships' consideration tomorrow.
However, for now, before the noble Lord reads them, I think I should say that he was talking about
466
two completely different cases. The power of entry under Clause 7 can be used where a local authority proposes to carry out works on any land for the purpose of reclaiming land under which relevant observations have been carried out, whereas under Clause 8 this is the compulsory carrying out of work. The noble Lord will readily see that these are slightly different.
The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, also asked about Wales. I should tell him that the derelict land survey of 1982 covered only England and so Wales is not included in this Bill. But we would perhaps be in a position to consider further whether it should be included at a later stage in the Bill.
My noble friend Lord Middleton made two points. First, I was delighted to hear from him that the owners accept that the conditions of the fund have been broadly carried out and that the Bill now meets the concerns of the owners. I accept my noble friend's point that one can never rule out the possibility that subsidence may recur on land restored after the opencast working of any mineral, although I am advised that the risk is slight. It is generally accepted that where subsidence may recur on land restored after the opencast working of any mineral, although I am advised in certain circumstances, with assistance in the form of grant from the Ministry of Agriculture. I am advised that the risk of subsidence on restored ironstone land is no greater than the risk on land restored after the open-cast working of any other mineral. As far as I can see, that covers the major points.
The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, asked me why we had, in effect, two Bills, with one part of the Bill very narrowly drawn to a specific geographical area and the other covering the whole country. The noble Lord well knows that the legislative window is extremely small and where a situation arises which should be dealt with urgently the Government will use such legislation as they have in mind to bring about those changes in the law which they see as desirable. As I have said, I think now three times, I shall look at the points raised today and I have no doubt that we can look forward to an interesting discussion in Committee.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I say that I have had the opportunity of reading the Notes on Clauses and Schedules for this House. They were presented to me this morning by a Member of the other House; in fact, the chairman of the All-Party Minerals Group, of which I am a member. I have read them carefully and, as far as I can understand them, they do not affect my arguments in relation to compensation and the suggestion that the depreciation of land should form part of the compensation given under Clause 7. The noble Lord referred to Wales and said that the survey was limited to England. He said that this particular point would probably be considered in the course of the passage of this Bill. Was he there giving some kind of assurance that a survey of Wales will be done in relation to these matters, which can be of great importance?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the only undertaking I was giving was to consider any point that the noble

467
Lord might bring forward on that subject at a subsequent stage of the Bill. So far as the Notes on Clauses are concerned, that only bears out the last point I made in this short wind-up speech: that we will have an interesting Committee stage.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

New Towns and Urban Development Corporations Bill
4.8 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (The Earl of Avon): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
I know that many Members of this House have taken a keen interest and a justifiable pride in our new towns. Indeed, it was a committee under the late Lord Reith who laid the foundations for new towns. The first New Towns Act in 1946 followed closely the framework laid down by that committee. It provided for new town development corporations with wide-ranging powers to achieve the planned development of their areas. The aim was then, as it has remained ever since, the achievement of thriving, balanced communities, able ultimately to be treated in the same way as other towns. I am myself conscious of being a novice in this debate where every speaker has more knowledge than I and, indeed, most of them are leading experts. The main theme of this Bill is that final step for the new towns in England and Wales.
In Scotland, the pattern of progress foreseen by the Government is different, and this Bill does no more than make some minor changes in relation to the Scottish new towns. For English and Welsh new towns, however, it addresses squarely the question of what is to be done when the new towns approach maturity.
Eight new town development corporations have already been wound up and their remaining assets and liabilities transferred to the Commission for the New Towns. Another five are due to be treated in the same way in the course of this year. The three new town development corporations in the North-East of England were due to be wound up at the end of this year, but their future is currently under review and the Government are aware of the need for an early decision. Our conclusions will be announced as soon as possible. The Cwmbran Development Corporation, in Wales, is due to be wound up at the end of March 1988, and the target has been set for winding up the remaining four corporations in England in the late 1980s. Consideration now has to be given to precisely what date that should be. Now is the right time to look ahead and make the necessary legislative provisions for the final winding up of the new towns programme in England and Wales.
Before turning to the details of the Bill, I should like briefly to look at the history of the subject. Although there has always been a considerable consensus on the powers needed by development corporations and the way in which they should tackle their work, the same cannot be said about what should happen when they
468
reach the end of that development task. Lord Reith's own committee was divided on that issue. Some say that the transfer of the assets and liabilities to the local authority for the area is the correct solution. Others saw objection to the idea of combining the role of the local authority with large-scale ownership of land in the town. These differences were reflected in the 1946 Act, which allowed a variety of outcomes, including even the sale of the assets.
By the late 1950s the problem was becoming more urgent as some of the new towns near London approached completion. The then Government decided it would not be right to combine local authority functions with widespread property ownership. As an interim solution they introduced the New Towns Act 1959. This created the Commission for the New Towns as the public body which would inherit the assets and liabilities of development corporations when they were wound up. As I mentioned, eight new towns have already passed to the commission, and five more are expected to do so this year. But even then the Government made clear that the commission was not in itself the final answer: that, it was argued, would emerge with the benefit of time and experience.
Nothing lasts like the temporary. After nearly 25 years the time has come to resolve this problem. The Government do not believe that there is a case for a continuing special public sector involvement in the new towns. Our policy has been aptly summarised as being to make the new towns as much like old towns as quickly as possible. The special involvement of the public sector through the ownership of land and buildings has been an important tool in promoting the growth of the new towns. But when that induced growth has been achieved and there is no need for further growth, the case for that special involvement ceases. We believe that the right solution is for the property which in other towns is owned by the private sector to pass into the hands of the private sector in this case. Within the framework of the New Towns Act, and with the modifications made by the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980, we have already seen steady progress in this disengagement. Some £500 million worth of commercial and industrial assets have already been sold to the private sector. This Bill provides for the continuance and completion of that policy.
Against that background I should like to turn to the first of the detailed provisions in the Bill. Clause 1 enables the commission to continue with the task of disengagement and normality—unlovely words, but they state clearly the basic aims of the policy. The clause picks up from the existing provisions the remit of "holding, managing and turning to account" the assets which the commission inherits from development corporations. It then restates and clarifies the powers of the commission to realise those assets as soon as it considers that expedient. By adjusting the existing provisions, the clause then goes on to provide the necessary controls over the commission's work, consistent with its main tasks.
Clause 2 gives the Secretary of State power to wind up the commission when its tasks are substantially achieved and makes appropriate provision for dealing with residual assets and liabilities. But the Bill can only

469
set the general framework within which the commission can operate. Your Lordships will want to hear more about the way in which it is intended that these powers should be used. I draw particular attention to the passage in Clause 1 of the Bill which requires the commission, in carrying out its task, to have regard to:
"the convenience and welfare of persons residing, working or carrying on business there";
that is, in the towns for which they are responsible. This requirement qualifies the whole of the commission's activities, and I emphasise this because it shows the way in which the commission must approach their work.
The activities of the commission must vary according to the circumstances of the town. My honourable friend the Minister for Housing and Construction said in another place that it was not the intention that the activities of the commission in the towns where they are about to assume responsibility would be a carbon copy of what they are doing in the towns in the home counties where they have long had responsibilities.
The example of Corby is already enough to show that this is the case. The commission undertook responsibilities in Corby in 1980 when the development corporation was wound up. Corby was then faced with special difficulties because the steelworks that the new town was built to serve were closing down. The commission, as part of its programme agreed with my department, undertook, in conjunction with the local authority, a substantial development and promotion programme. I believe the general consensus is that it has been a success.
The commission's response will therefore be flexible, depending on the needs of the towns in which they are operating. Where it is necessary for them to undertake development and promotion they will be able to do so. We expect them to relate their activities of this kind specifically to the realisation of the assets which they will inherit; but to bring land intended for industrial development into full productive use will require support and promotion for developments. To sell industrial premises at a proper price will need the local economy to be in as good a condition as possible, and that again will involve more than simply auctioning off buildings for what they can get. In all this we shall of course expect the commission to act in accord with general Government policy for limiting public expenditure; and we shall hope to see reliance placed mainly on encouraging private investment.
New town development corporations have on the whole good relations with the local authorities in their areas. This is something we wish to see continue when the commission takes over. There are bound to be changes in two respects at least, for the local authority will be undertaking greater responsibilities. In the first place, public sector rented housing in the new towns will in most towns become the responsibility of the local housing authority. Everywhere we hope to see the local district council take over responsibility for the public open spaces and other facilities for the use of the community which have been provided and maintained by development corporations. We believe that we have reached an equitable basis for this transfer.
470
I have already spoken about the arrangements at Corby. There the commission's input has been side by side with that of the district council. The Joint Industrial Development Committee there has done good work. The commission are setting up liaison committees elsewhere where it is taking over their responsibilities. They involve local district councils and representatives of the county councils, and the local business community can be brought in as necessary. Some of these committees have already started meeting. The reports I have suggest that the foundations are being laid for a helpful and cooperative approach.
I spent a fair time explaining the first proposals in the Bill. If I may, I will now deal more briefly with the rest. Clauses 3, 4 and 5 make some changes in the arrangements for housing transfers. Clause 3 simplifies the form of a housing transfer scheme. Clause 4 provides explicit statutory authority for the grants which are already being paid under the authority of the Appropriation Act.
Clause 5 provides that the Crombie terms of compensation will not be available to staff affected by any future housing transfers, including those about to take place. The Government's intentions on this were made clear by my right honourable friend the then Secretary of State for the Environment in May 1982.
With Clauses 6, 7 and 8 we come to the other main theme of the Bill. The new towns have always been financed mainly by borrowing. The expectation was that the development of the towns would create sufficient surplus to repay that borrowing. In the case of the first generation of new towns, that expectation has on the whole been fulfilled. In the case of the second and third generations, it has not. Circumstances have changed in many regards, and some specific decisions in the 1970s substantially increased the liabilities of the new town development corporations. The result is that the second and third generation new towns are unlikely to provide sufficient surpluses to service all the debt that they have incurred. The Bill therefore provides for financial reconstructions.
For the new towns where developments will continue for some time, their finances will be reconstructed by means of writing-off some of the debt and by providing grant for the provision of facilities such as roads and open spaces, which cannot be expected to pay for themselves. This will give these development corporations a new, clear remit for their remaining work. For the other new towns, part of the outstanding debt will be suspended while the assets are realised and applied to the redemption of the debt.
Finally, the House will have noticed that the Bill contains a reference to the urban development corporations. The sole provision in the Bill affecting them is an increase in the finance available for them. This is part of the regular system whereby programmes of this kind are made subject to parliamentary review. It gives an opportunity for a review of the activities of the corporations—an opportunity which your Lordships may have noticed was fully seized on Report stage in another place. For present purposes, I just want to say that the two urban development corporations are doing a magnificent job and that the

471
provision of further resources for the regeneration of the Merseyside and London docklands is entirely justified.
Although this Bill contains some quite complicated provisions, its general purpose is simple: to enable the new towns programme in England and Wales to be brought to a satisfactory conclusion and to permit the urban development corporations' programme of regeneration to continue. Both purposes are fully justified. My Lords, I commend the Bill to the House and I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—[The Earl of Avon.]
4.22 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Eskan: My Lords, when I was chairman of the Milton Keynes Development Corporation I had occasion, in the early 1970s, to discuss some development problem with the then—Conservative—Secretary of State for Industry. As I was leaving the Minister's room, he took me aside and said: "We are going to be difficult, but we are not going to be stupid." That seemed to me an admirable formula which I hope still applies.
To the extent that this Bill is designed to produce a more rational and businesslike system for those engaged in new town and urban development, to clarify the role of the commission and to assure the orderly completion of the new towns, it is to be welcomed. But I must say that I wish there was not such an air of unseemly and possibly even improvident haste in the process of winding-up. The building of new communities, of new towns, has by any standard been a success, socially, economically and in terms of generating new jobs in modern factories and offices, with up-to-date equipment in pleasant surroundings for living, working, travelling and retirement.
The real achievements of the new towns, socially and economically, have far outweighed their imperfections. They have also offered, although this may not entirely earn them good marks with our present Government, splended examples of the virtues of a mixed economy. Public investment got them going and on that foundation the private sector can progressively take over until the development corporation finishes the job.
I have never understood the contention that the renewal of old towns and the building of new communities are mutually exclusive. Generations in the past have built towns and cities appropriate to their needs. Today's old towns were once new towns and were built to satisfy the needs and standards of their times.
I want briefly to deal with three points. First, those development corporations which have not finished their work should be allowed—indeed, encouraged—to do so. The Government should see to it that their work is completed in a way which does not leave a long-term burden upon the areas which have provided the sites for these great schemes of British post-war development. And those who have invested their lives, their livelihood and their money in what was originally a paper plan, in the belief that the
472
Government would see it through, must simply not be let down.
Milton Keynes, for instance, is only about half finished. Even The Times in a leading article on Christmas Eve last wrote:
"The development corporations (quangos that they are) have in most cases impressively fulfilled their tasks in building, letting and boosting. Is that job finished? In Milton Keynes, also in Peterborough and Telford, the answer is 'No': the Milton Keynes Development Corporation has work (performed at minimal net cost to the public purse because of the strength of its porfolio of assets) to last well into the I990s".
It is extremely difficult to find anybody outside SW 1 who does not think that it would be folly to change the management—to change the rules—now. The main effect would undoubtedly be to dry up the flow of private investment and to sell the towns short.
The great attraction of a new town to private housebuilders and to commercial and industrial investors is that the generation of jobs, the building of houses and the development of social services, education, transport, recreation and so on all go hand in hand. This is something that does not happen when there is no development corporation on the spot.
My second point is this. For the first time, sensible arrangements are being offered whereby grants, as against loans, may be made for certain categories of development expenditure. By all means let the Government be difficult, be tough, in the application of this new system, but I hope that they will not be stupid. For instance, where some comprehensive and balanced development has been approved by Whitehall, it should be unnecessary to insist on specific approval for every item of expenditure involved. I hope that the Government will not engage in quite unnecessary and expensive, in time and money, nitpicking, for the want of a more eloquent word. It is hardly unfair to say that, up to now, new towns have been built more in spite of than thanks to the rules, but often thanks to the good sense of the officials interpreting them.
My third and last point is this. Hitherto, when development corporations were abolished, as the noble Earl said, the commercial and industrial assets were handed over to the Commission for the New Towns, which retained powers and responsibilities for promoting the towns, for generating jobs, and for maturing the assets until they could be sold without detriment to citizens and investors. This was thoroughly sensible, for it recognised the need for, as it were, a transitional period. Is it now the Government's intention that the primary function of the commission should be to disengage from its role as commercial and industrial landlord, to minimise its promotional role, and to sell off the properties as soon as it can be rid of them? What can be more improvident than to jeopardise the full realisation of the capital and revenue value of public investment in new towns by turning off the tap before the culmination of its potential?
This Bill is said to be necessary to enable new towns to become self-sufficient communities, to discourage their special public sector involvement, and to bring the new towns programme to its completion. I find the last purpose sad, because I believe that the new towns programme has been a great British success story since

473
the war. It has certainly been recognised as such abroad. But if the end must come, let it not be by scuttling. I hope that the noble Earl can undertake that the genuine completion of properly balanced communities with flourishing employment will be encouraged.
I should like to say a last word on employment. The generation of jobs is a crucial role of development corporations. New towns have proved themselves particularly successful in attracting foreign investment which might otherwise have gone elsewhere in Europe. With unemployment the bedevilling evil of our society today, no agency should be disbanded or discouraged that has proved its continuing capacity to provide new jobs.
4.28 p.m.
Baroness Stedman: My Lords, I accept that this Bill is not entirely unexpected, but neither is it wholly acceptable at this point of time. Those of us who have been involved with new towns knew that at some time or other those new towns would be wound up when the development corporations' job was completed and that the town would then be handed over, more or less, to the local authority. In the early days we thought that we were being practical and realistic—not idealistic—when we believed that as a general rule it would be right for the commercial and industrial properties to return to the community, because it would have been the community, the community activities and the amenities, that would have played the major part in increasing the value of the leasehold properties.
I still believe that the new town communities should benefit from the increment in the value of land. I am not opposed to local shopkeepers buying their own shops or to local industrialists being able to buy their own factories and warehouses, and I applaud tenants having the right to buy their own homes. But I am opposed to the commission being able to dispose of the properties on the open market, probably to faceless pension funds, insurance companies, multinationals and banks. If this is to be, then we need to ensure that there is not a sudden glut of industrial and commercial properties on the open market, with the result that a fair price is not obtained. We must realise fully the proper value of these assets and any forced sale of land, shops and factories would cause concern within the new towns.
On housing in the new towns, must all the rented accommodation be transferred to the local authorities? Cannot housing associations and co-operatives also be involved in managing some of this rented stock? There must be a sensible transfer of the housing stock and community buildings and enough time must be allowed for this to proceed smoothly. It must not be rushed, and any botched-up and ill-thought out schemes produced against a deadline date really must not be tolerated. I understand that Milton Keynes, which has been so excellently referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, Redditch and my own city of Peterborough have already established combined housing departments to administer both stocks of rented accommodation, that belonging to the city council and to the development corporation. This is good practice because it allows the housing
474
department to assume those extra responsibilities in an orderly fashion. The district councils and the development corporation housing departments are unlikely to have been organised on exactly identical lines and it will take time for a proper system to evolve using the best standards of both.
I would hope that at least another five years, in the case of Peterborough, would be allowed from the public announcement of the date of winding-up, but if the local administrators—the city council and the county council—feel that perhaps three and a half years or four years might be more reasonable, then due consideration must be given to their views.
I hope the Minister will also be in a position at some stage in the course of our consideration of this Bill to give us more detail about payments for repairs and defects in the property handed over. If future defective property is handed over, or property which is found to be defective after it has been handed over, where will the money come from to meet such unexpected repairs? With the limitation of rates and the threats of penalties and of rate-capping, the existing districts will not be too anxious to take over a possible future burden without some guarantee of financial help from the Government where the case is proven.
I accept that the local authorities will be taking over the former special new towns grant, and in future that will be part of the housing subsidy. But that may still not be enough if serious defects occur later. Is the Minister satisfied that the subsidy on capitalised repairs will be adequate? If not, how will the local authorities obtain redress?
If the third generation of new towns are to be wound up, as the Minister hopes, in two or three years' time, will the commission be given a really positive role in promoting new towns until the sale of outstanding industrial and commercial land has been completed? I know this is a problem for my own new town of Peterborough and I have also received representations from people in Milton Keynes, but they have been much better covered by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell. The new town authorities believe that the commission will still have a very real job to do for some years to come.
Consultations are going on between the department and the authorities which are affected by the winding up of the development corporations and the future role of the commission. Will the Secretary of State have real regard to what those authorities want and feel is necessary? They will have to assume the responsibilities and their views must carry real weight in the decision about the timetable to be imposed on them. The year 1987 is the date in the mind of the Secretary of State for the winding up of the programme in Peterborough. I believe that the development corporation, the city council and the county council all feel that this is too soon. I personally should have thought that 1990 was a much more likely date. Will the views of the authorities count?
I want to turn now to Peterborough because I believe that their views would broadly coincide with the other third generation new towns. I was a member of the county council and of the development corporation until I had Front Bench responsibilities in your Lordships' House in 1975. In 1967 when the old

475
Huntingdon and Peterborough County Council were in being they were considering the Government's proposals for our new town. They were given assurances that financial contributions would be made by the development corporation towards the cost of providing the local authority services so that local authority ratepayers would not bear an undue burden. That agreement covered the point that the main roads servicing the new town would be financed by the development corporation with a very limited county council contribution. The county council also received a graduated sizeable contribution over a number of years towards the cost of educational provision in the new town area. Over the years, after the 1974 reorganisation when we became part of Cambridgeshire, in spite of these agreements it became apparent that the scale and pattern of the development and its phasing was putting an "undue burden" on the local authority finances and on the existing ratepayers. This view was shared by other county councils with new towns in their area.
When I was a very junior Minister at the Department of the Environment, Cambridgeshire County Council and the other five counties involved came to impress upon the Minister that the financial burden was too heavy, and that new town development should not take place at the expense of their county ratepayers. The year 1976 also was a time of cutback in shire counties' spending. Our populations were growing in advance of our grants and, to their credit, the Labour Government of the day accepted our arguments. They agreed that the development corporations would make contributions to the county councils to alleviate the heavy financial burden associated with the rapid growth of population. Despite the continuing financial problems that growth brought to those counties—even with this agreement—the Conservative Government terminated that agreement and to this day I understand they have never produced a financial analysis in support of that change of heart. Then came the slowing down of the development of the new towns, resulting in county council facilities being under-used for longer periods than was expected when we entered into the commitments. Specialist facilities cannot be fully used until the designated area is fully populated.
Those local authorities with new towns have taken on these commitments at the behest of central Government. It was central Government who inspired the planned growth of the designated new towns and the Labour Government agreed that the development corporations should accept some financial responsibility in this matter so that the local domestic and business ratepayers did not carry this undue burden. Peterborough New Town is now established and is a great success, but there is still a need to maintain the momentum of work which is not yet completed, including the £6·2 million priority mainroad programmes not yet completed—indeed, deferred as a result of Government restraints. The prolongation of this programme into a period after the life of the development corporation could have adverse financial consequences for the county council
476
unless special funding arrangements are made for them to be built later by the county.
The local authorities and the development corporation are jointly promoting at this time a Cambridgeshire-Peterborough international axis, as it were, to attract business and commercial firms into the area. That needs to be ongoing, and, with limited finance available to the local authorities today, I doubt if they can do it on their own. The expansion of Peterborough or of any new town is not going to cease on the day the development corporation is wound up. There has always been a move from the deprived inner cities, and the promotion of the development corporations over the past two decades or so has meant that that movement has happened in a balanced way because the development corporations have been superb job agencies at little or no cost to the local authorities.
Our marketing activities have been excellent—few people have not heard or read of the "Peterborough Effect"—and there must be the means of maintaining that adequate marketing capacity until and after the development corporation is wound up. What will be the real long-term promotional role of the commission? How do the Government see the role of the commission in supporting local amenities and social and cultural projects?
Looking ahead on another question, the Cambridgeshire structure plan is now being reviewed and rolled forward to provide a long-term planning framework beyond the period of the master plan. Will the Secretary of State be in a position to approve these revisions before the development corporation is wound up?
Then we return to the vexed question of penalties and targets. They do not take account of the financial consequences of population changes. Natural growth will continue and I plead with the Minister to see that the targets are not based on past spending but on up-to-date measures of spending need.
The real success of the new towns and the urban development corporations has been their ability to do some pump-priming. With the Dockland Development Corporation £200 million was pumped in in the initial cash and some £50 million to £60 million into Merseyside. An organisation which has proved to be good for dockland and for Merseyside should be good for other cities, too. The new towns have built up specialist teams with considerable expertise. They could do so much if they were kept together as teams to use their undoubted expertise, to become catalysts for growth in depressed areas in inner cities or even in regions. Is it not possible to develop some limited-life agencies on an inner-city or regional basis to do something similar to what the Scottish and Welsh Development Agencies are doing? Please do not let all this expertise go but try to use it in ways similar to those I have suggested.
Finally, by and large, the new towns have been a success. They have provided new jobs. They have provided new industry, good housing, a good social mix, better community facilities and a pleasant environment. We all owe a considerable debt to those who work in and for our new towns. We should be proud of their achievements and want to see them flourish in the future.
4.43 p.m.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, I did not put down my name for this debate because I did not intend to speak on Second Reading but it slowly dawned on me as the debate proceeded that there would be no opportunity for me to speak at the Committee stage because that essentially deals with the detail of the Bill and I do not want to deal with its detail.
I thought that the fundamental aims of the new town movement would be dealt with in the debate, but up to now I do not see it. As a past chairman of the Runcorn Development Corporation, before it was wound up and joined with Warrington New Town, I do not know how one measures the success of a new town. It would be wrong for me, still involved in the new town movement, to claim success for something of which I am a part. If dealing with unemployment and enabling the inhabitants to lead a fairly decent and tolerable life are an indication of the success of new towns, then certainly the new towns in the South-East of England have achieved their objectives and must be ranked as successes; but, to be perfectly frank, to talk about a success in the context of Runcorn, where there is still 14 per cent. unemployment, is not a bright prospect for me, coming from that area myself. Therefore, I hesitate to claim that we have been successful.
As I see it, one of the fundamental problems of the new towns is that we did not see the difference between the establishment of phase one new towns and phase two and what is left for the future. The aim of the new towns in the South of England was fairly clear. It could be seen and the need for them could be seen. It was to try to settle the massive problems that were occurring in the capital cities—especially the problems of congestion. We had quickly to get people into decent living accommodation and give them space to live. I think that, by and large, no one can deny that that has been achieved.
However, those of us in the North of England who were watching the new town movement in the South of England were beginning to say that the solution did not apply to us because our problem was not really congestion. While the new towns were being built in the South-East of England the northern cities were creating their own. Some of them could be criticised for the way in which they were created but one could not call Kirkby anything but a new town. The fact that Liverpool Corporation was compelled to build it but was not given the social powers to provide the infrastructure in Kirkby New Town cannot be blamed on Liverpool. Liverpool built a new town but it was restricted in its activities to within the boundaries of Liverpool, and that was wrong. It led to a tremendous number of failures in the achievement of a good environment at Kirkby, which are now beginning to be tackled.
The problem in the North of England is not the same as that in the South. One of the tragedies of the new town movement was that we did not close down some of the earlier first stage new towns earlier than we ultimately did. I believe that some of the resources going into new towns in the South should have been directed towards the North long before they were.
478
What are the prospects for the future? I do not believe that the solution to the problems is just creating a new town that is a perfect new town in itself. I have always seen the new town movement as part and parcel of a national plan and that the purpose of new towns nationally was to develop places where we would have the good life, where people could live in tolerable conditions, with jobs and incomes in order to provide that decent life. If we keep on looking at new towns individually we shall never get to that situation. I make this plea to the Government: that the commission takes over the existing new towns.
The problem about the urban development corporations is somewhat less clear. If the purpose of the urban development corporations is to solve the massive problems in Merseyside I do not think there is any great limiting timescale to their existence because the job to be done there is too massive.
Reference was made to the success of the urban development corporations. I do not know whether the urban development corporations have been in existence long enough to have made a success at all. If they had been a success that success would have been in Merseyside. But can anyone say that Merseyside is a success, that Merseyside is an example of good planning, of prosperity and of where people are living a good life? It is not.
What is needed now is a fundamentally new approach—and I do not see it in the Bill—to the question of establishing new environments in that part of our kingdom that needs it. It is not, if I may say so, in the South-East but in the northern parts of this country. Unless we find some way of, first, establishing a partnership between localities in the North and the Government in the South and, secondly, making sure that the resources are shifted from the South, and the South-East in particular, into the North, we are never going to solve the problems.
What I should like to see is the commission's approach widened. At some time in the future it should be given more power. I do not suggest that this Bill is the right time to do that, but I think that the Government should give some attention to creating more powers in the commission and to making it longer term. It should be a tool by which central Government can devolve to the North some of the resources that are now in the South. Unless we do that, the urban development corporations are destined to fail. There is no way that the UDCs will bring the necessary number of jobs to the North of this land through private enterprise.
The Government must sit down and draw up a plan to move from the South-East all the jobs that need not be there. The Government Civil Service does not need to be in the South-East to the extent that it exists there now. I have said that inside the Chamber and outside it until I am getting tired of hearing it, let alone others. It is true to say that there is no long-term unemployment problem in the South-East but there is a congestion of jobs. One has only to look at the advertisements for job vacancies to realise that that is absolutely true. Private enterprise finds it very difficult indeed to find all the secretaries and administration personnel that it needs in the South-East because of the pressure that comes from the siting of Government

479
offices in the capital. When this Government came to power they withdrew the proposals to devolve Civil Service jobs to the North. But there are jobs that can be shed from the South-East and moved to the North.
The commission, as an arm of Government, can be used in the effort to get jobs to places like Merseyside and the North-East of England. I make this plea: Let us not carry on looking at new towns as we have looked at them for the past 35 years. The job that needs to be done in Great Britain now is entirely different from that which needed to be done 35 years ago. Now we have to make sure that there is a fair crack of the whip for everybody in England. We must not develop Stansted, the Channel Tunnel and the London Docklands to the point that they strangle the rest of the country and deny the North of this land the resources that it really wants.
4.52 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I think that the Minister will be as grateful as I am to noble Lords on the Back-Benches on this side of the House for three excellent speeches. I make no point in that respect. We have not had merely the voices of politicians—although they are politicians—hut of practitioners. They have brought to the House the sum total of their experience in one new town development corporation or another in grappling with the problems. The words of the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Eskan, and the noble Lord, Lord Sefton, are very valuable indeed. They speak not only from their experience, but also from their hearts. Those of us in this House and in another place with experience can sense when a person feels controlled passion for the subject about which he speaks. In my view, all three speeches were well worth listening to and I believe they augur well for the Committee stage of the Bill.
Some of us have travelled this road before. The Minister was fair when in his opening words he said that this was only part of the departmental responsibilities with which he was grappling. The new towns road is a long road, and it was always envisaged that it would have an ending. We are not tonight debating when the metamorphosis of the new towns will take place, but what we on this side of the House consider to be a number of unsatisfactory methods that the Government are using to complete the new towns programme.
Reference has been made to the programme. To be fair, the Minister acknowledged that the new towns per se were a success story. There have been problems and disappointments in one new town or another, but as an experiment in social engineering and planning we are entitled to say that it has been a success. Over a period of 40 years the new towns programme has had the support of the two main parties which have formed Governments. Although we do not need too many statistics to bolster our satisfaction, I think that one or two are well worth reading into the record. Over that period 400,000 new dwellings, 700 new schools and 5,000 new shops have been built; 1 million people have transferred into new towns, and 2 million are now living there. There are jobs by the hundred thousand. We are entitled to take some credit for that.
480
The Minister quite properly spent most of his time on those parts of the Bill which deal with the new towns, but we must also remember that it deals with urban development corporations. The Minister said that, finally, in passing, he came to the urban development corporations. I intend to say a great deal more about them. They are crucial to the situation.
The creation of development corporations was also tagged onto legislation in 1980. When the Local Government, Planning and Land Bill emerged (which was already three Bills rubbed into one), along with it came the announcement that we were to get the enterprise zones—yet another Bill; so there were in fact four Bills rolled into one. I had the pleasure of serving on the Committee on that Bill. It was a pleasure. I learnt a great deal from Members on both sides.
My noble friend Lord Sefton treated the UDCs very seriously, as we should. He sees them as a counterweight to transfer resources. What do we have in this Bill? When introducing the Second Reading debate on the Bill in another place the Minister for Housing talked in terms of a new wonder ingredient to salve and to ease all pains. He talked of the magic of the market place. If it is rubbed on at night, all those nasty spots will disappear: take it whenever you are feeling down, and, bingo, all your troubles will be over! The Minister felt that the solution to most of the problems was in the magic of the market place. Such touching faith in such dubious remedies qualifies the Minister for a Which award—"The witch doctor of the year"!
There is much to be said for proclaiming that after 40 years of public subvention the time to call it a day may be at hand. Three generations of new towns have come and are going. We on these Benches have no quibble ultimately with the end. But, as the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, and the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, asked, why is there this inordinate haste? Why is there this hurry? When there are people with the qualifications in situ, ready and able to continue satisfactorily to run down the machinery, why disturb a very good system?
Members of Parliament who represent new towns have been able to bring to Parliament first-hand experience of the problems facing their constituents. I refer to tenants, ratepayers and business men. It is all very well to announce the date for winding-up, but it is quite another thing to hand over the business of running the new town to a body which is in good heart, with the financial resources to carry forward the good work of the past 20 or 30 years.
Let us pause for a moment and look at the plight of tenants. Tens of thousands of them, glad to go to a new town, get a new home, obtain a job and live a new life, have had untold misery heaped upon them as a result of defective housing. Of course, defective housing is a minority of the housing that has been built but there is a great deal of it. It is one thing to hand over corporation housing to a local authority; it has been quite another for that authority to obtain the cash out of the department to remedy the structural defects in those houses.
As a direct question, I ask: what can the Minister tell the House on this matter? He will refer to Clause 4 in this Bill. But he will know that to talk, as does Clause

481
4, of "accepted remedial work" is wholly inadequate. Many councils are lumbered with appalling situations, with thousands of houses needing to be made fit, but are denied the resources to do so because the Ministry has proved tardy in the extreme in recognising the size of the task. What has the Minister to say to those wretched tenants? I think particularly of Peterlee. It is estimated that £40 million is required to put in order development corporation houses that they have had to take over from the development corporation. They have received far less than half the sum of money required to put them right.
Then there are the owner-occupiers. Many occupy purpose-built houses; others have bought their own house. As ratepayers new town residents suffer more than most from the capricious nature of government rate support policies. Here I plead in aid the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, who speaks with knowledge on these matters. New towns are involved in many infrastructure costs, wholly disproportionate to normal towns of their size. The rates structure, with its exemptions and qualifications, fails abysmally to take into account the special characteristics of new towns. When the Government glory in—and I quote from the face of the Bill—
"the completion and subsequent winding-up of the new towns programme in England and Wales",
they completely fail to pay adequate attention to the problems this leaves for councils, residents and industrialists.
The Minister must know that there is much uncertainty and unease about in many towns. The failure to accept the very reasonable requests of my honourable friends, and the failure of the Minister of Housing in another place to give the local authorities affected some right to consultation, are shabby. I recall that the Minister in his opening remarks said that there were good relationships between development corporations and local councils. The Minister was absolutely fair in that way. Yet when my honourable friends in another place sought to amend the Bill to give local councils the right to consultation when disposing of assets, that was resisted by the Government. I wonder whether the Minister can say something about that here, or will he wait until Committee stage?
When we come to the economic wellbeing of new town communities moving into the unclear waters over the next few years, that is where I have the greatest sense of foreboding. I refer to the transitional period into which we are passing. I should like to plead in aid a communication I received from the Association of District Councils who obtained this information from the Wrekin Council. Wrekin has Telford New Town in its area. This is what they have told me:
"One of the major issues for the council is the future role and life of the New Towns Commission in terms of employment development and promotion and the future of land ownership.
"When the development corporation is wound up, its residual assets would pass to the Commission who will in turn be given the prime responsibility of disposing of those assets. They will have a promotion function which is presently London based with area teams located within individual towns after transfer. Given the local circumstances, it seems highly unlikely that this mechanism would prove to be adequate for Telford with the town so far short of its target size and if unemployment levels persist at present levels, as seems likely".
482
Will the Minister address himself to that point, which was the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, and the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, who said that the prospects of completing their programmes and the problem of unemployment were very worrying indeed?
I was grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, for referring to the question of what is going to happen to the teams of people with skill, talent and experience who have been able to attract to the new towns firms from all over the world. On the face of the Bill there is talk in terms of 5,000 employees who will be distributed in one way or another. It says that some will be required by the commission, others will be required by the local authorities, and yet others will be required by private sector bodies and housing associations. The precise proportions cannot now be predicted. The Minister must be aware of the very serious worry and concern which exists among the staff at every level in the development corporations and in the commission. He really ought to say something to us tonight about that matter.
I turn to the situation in the urban development corporations. This was one of the bright ideas that were spatchcocked into the 1980 Local Government, Planning and Land Bill, just as it has been gratuitously tagged on to this one. We on these Benches opposed the concept of urban development corporations at that time and since then we have not learned to love it any more. Much common ground exists about the nature of the problem, the daunting nature of the task. It is when we examine the how, the when and the who of the problem that we come to grief. Members of Parliament representing riparian councils expressed a large body of agreement during debates in the other place.
First, whoever are clapping their hands at London Docklands developments, they are not those who live in the area and are in housing need. I read of properties selling for £200,000, £300,000 and more, built by the development corporation for Docklands. I also read of cheaper properties, of a variety of schemes. But I want to hear more about houses for rent. Those that are being built in the modest price bracket are snapped up by, among others, council tenants. However, how are the hundreds of thousands of tenants trapped in high rise developments to sell their flats? To whom can they sell them, and for how much?
Together with my noble friends Lady Denington and Lord Underhill and the noble Lord, Lord Airedale (who I see in his place), last week I had the pleasure of a visit to a number of developments that were built by either the GLC or councils in Southwark, Greenwich or Tower Hamlets. The purpose was not to discuss the Docklands Development Corporation. However, we saw the enormity of the problem that is facing these councils. We visited the Ferrier estate in Greenwich. We could see dockland developments all around us. On the Ferrier estate there are 74 blocks of houses—74 on the one estate. They are bereft of community assets. We were told that it would cost £35 million to put those properties right.
Again, I am indebted to my noble friend Lady Stedman for making the remark about the reneging by a previous Conservative Government on

483
commitments that were made that moneys would be made available in order to put properties in good order, because we are on the verge of something comparable happening here. In the local government Bill to abolish the GLC there are in Clause 84(1) powers that the Secretary of State will take to revoke or amend the terms of the transfer orders once the GLC is abolished. When we are talking about the future happiness of hundreds of thousands of people who are affected by the urban development corporation for Docklands, we are entitled to say this. Surely the Government cannot possibly have insisted that Greenwich, Tower Hamlets, Lambeth and the other bodies take over these houses and that they have to put them right, and are now perhaps going to say, "The moneys that we said would be made available for you to put them right are not coming forward". I see the Minister looking somewhat puzzled and I appreciate that this may not directly be part of the brief.
If we are to say these things are taken into account in the housing investment programme allocation, then the councillors and the officers of those local authorities will be greatly relieved. They will be relieved that, despite Clause 84(1), their ability to pursue the undertaking that they have given to their tenants, in the light of the insistence by the Minister that the properties had to be accepted on those terms, is not going to be disadvantaged. If the Minister can give that assurance here or in Committee—because this will be a continuing process—I am certain that the councillors and the officers will be very happy.
I turn to aspects of the running-down or winding-up of new towns and the selling-off of commercial and industrial assets. Battles have been fought and water has run under many bridges. Original predictions were hurled at the Government by myself among others that forced sales to meet Treasury demands would result in bargain prices in a difficult market. The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, also referred to these points. We argued that local, small, struggling businessmen would be done out of their shops and factories, that investment and financial interests would step in to buy up large blocks of real estate, and that company towns would be created. I have read with interest and fascination every word of all stages of the debates in another place. All those predictions appear to have come to pass, according to Members in another place, in greater or lesser degree. I do not raise the principle of privatising public assets by "flogging off' shops and factories, except to say that I am against it. But the Minister has a duty to assure the House that the fears that I have listed are not being fulfilled. I wonder whether he will do so today.
Finally, I refer to the words of my honourable friend Mr. Harry Cowans on Third Reading in another place. He noted that, as we have come to expect, no change of any significance to the Bill had been made during its passage through the Commons. He pleaded that when the measure comes to your Lordships' House it should be altered so that it becomes more reasonable and more constructive. We intend to give the Minister opportunity to do just that during the Committee stage. We shall table helpful, reasonable and constructive amendments. They will seek to inject greater local
484
democratic involvement both in winding-up procedures and in the on-going programme of the urban corporations. They will have regard to the imperative to hang on to the skills and talents of workers in order to phase out successful developments with the minimum of hurt to local people. Above all, they will provide this side of the House with the opportunity to express its distaste for this avaricious, grubby little Bill, the prime purpose of which is to boost the coffers of the Chancellor in his desperate search for tax bonanzas and handouts. Let the Minister join us in improving this instrument for destruction and construct a better way of doing it.
Baroness Stedman: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I put the record straight in one respect? I did not want to interrupt the noble Lord while he was in full flood. The agreement to which I referred was not concerned with help for repairing defective properties; that had not arisen at the time. I was referring to 1976, when the six counties concerned came to the department to make the case for population coming in in advance of grants when we had to supply all the facilities and services for them. We had an agreement with the Labour Government for additional help, taking those points into account in preparing the rate support grant in one of its many evolutions. We managed to get help for the six counties, but it had nothing to do with defective property.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I am grateful. What the noble Baroness is saying is that we have always to be vigilant, whatever the issue and whatever the Government.
5.14 p.m.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, as so often with new town measures, we have had a stimulating debate. I was moderately happy with some of the remarks that the noble Lord, Lord Graham, made until he called the Bill avaricious and grubby. Whatever else, it is certainly neither of those. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Eskan, mentioned improvident haste and asked for an assurance that there is no prospect of a sudden turning-off of the tap. I assure him that there is no improvident haste, nor will there be any sudden turning-off of a tap. The noble Lord almost led me astray on the definition of old towns and new towns and those that we shall come to next. I sympathise with the noble Lord. I do not think that I shall follow him along that line.
The noble Lord spoke about development corporations which have not completed their work and claimed that they should be allowed to do so. The Government have announced a target date of the late 1980s for these towns. This progress will take place in consultation—I stress this to the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman—with the the local authorities and the development corporations. We understand how vital it is to get these considerations right.
The noble Lord asked that we should not nit-pick on the rules for new grants. I remind the noble Lord that this Government have provided a radical simplification of the rules. These greatly simplify new

485
towns' work. The same spirit, I assure him, will exist in relation to the new grants. The noble Lord also asked that the commission should not sell the assets before they are right. I have already stressed that the commission will vary its approach according to local circumstances.
In assessing the corporation's case at Milton Keynes the Government have concentrated their concern on giving the opportunity for further growth, taking into account whether it is essential to retain a development corporation to achieve that growth, and, if so, for how long, or whether the town should be sufficiently established by 1989 to grow on its own, with the market determining the rate of expansion, and whether it is necessary to keep all the powers and development functions of a corporation for a further decade to achieve this end.
The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, in referring to a very liberal, I thought, SDP programme, reintroduced me to that lovely commercial for Peterborough to which I listen virtually every morning in my bath. All that I needed to hear was the tweeting of the birds that is part of that programme. The noble Baroness asked about forced sales. Ministers have repeatedly stressed that there have been no forced sales and no sales contrary to the best professional advice. Two-thirds of the commission's sales to date, I understand, have been to local interests. I have been asked whether all the housing has to go to the local authority. I would refer to an example in central Lancashire, where negotiations are now well advanced for transfer to housing associations. Elsewhere much depends on the view of local authorities.
Both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Graham, spoke about grants for defects in transferred housing. The local authority taking over housing from a new town corporation receives, under the rules established by this Government, exactly the same resources as a new town corporation would have received if it had kept the housing. The noble Baroness also asked for an assurance that there would be no hurry in the winding-up process. Local authorities will wish to negotiate various aspects involved in winding-up and a deadline is sometimes necessary to produce satisfactory negotiations. I can assure the noble Baroness that we shall pay full regard to what the local authorities have to say.
The noble Baroness asked about the removal of new town payments to help with local authority tenders. The old system of these payments was related to the rate support grant system in force before 1981. With the change in the RSG system, the case for special payments was removed. This was done only after full discussion with the county councils' association. Special transitional arrangements were made. The department has written to the local authorities—the noble Baroness referred to Peterborough—asking what the authorities want to see done before the development corporation is wound up. We shall be discussing these views with them.
The noble Lord, Lord Sefton of Garston, referred to problems in the north. Of course, they are different, as the noble Lord underlined very ably. I stress that the response to the Commission for the New Towns will be flexible, depending on local circumstances. The development corporation approach has been applied
486
to the problems of Merseyside. We are far from a point where it would make sense to think about what the circumstances will be when its programme is nearing completion. There have been some good achievements there, such as the success of the international garden festival, the restoration of the Albert Docks warehouses and the restoration of a water regime to part of the South Docks. The noble Lord will agree, I know, that there are other good examples.
The noble Lord, Lord Graham, mentioned Peterlee. Peterlee housing was transferred to Easington District Council in 1978, with a second transfer in 1982. The department has looked into other representations there. It is satisfied that the operations have been successfully handled. The noble Lord asked about the speed of winding-up the programme. Development corporations are set up with a specific task—that of inducing growth. Where that task is complete, the development corporation is no longer needed. The noble Lord also mentioned—
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, will the noble Earl allow me? I am grateful. We mentioned Peterlee and the winding-up. The Minister referred to the three North-Eastern towns, for which a date had been announced; that is, the end of this year. Representation has been made that this be varied. The Minister said an announcement would be made shortly. I respect that; an announcement will be made. But I wonder whether he would bear in mind that in the current situation in the North-East, where unemployment is desperate, the development corporations have a special role that they can play in the special circumstances. That ought to be a factor to be taken into account when he considers varying the date.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Graham, is totally aware that that is the very reason why the decision is being reconsidered.
The noble Lord mentioned UDCs. I think much has already been achieved here. In regard to priority for council tenants, he mentioned that the LDDC's policy is to ensure that a substantial proportion of housing schemes on its land are within the means of people earning average London incomes. It is also, however, to ensure that it obtains a fair price for the land and that the prices are pitched at a level which does not tempt small numbers of tenants to make windfall gains. I am sure the noble Lord would agree with all that.
This Bill is of course particularly important because, unlike the previous measures, it deals specifically with the question of final wind-up and sets out how to bring the new town programme to a satisfactory conclusion. The Government are confident that this Bill provides the right framework. It allows the new towns development corporations and the commissions of the new towns to build on the progress they have already made both in taking the development of our towns forward to satisfactory completion and in disengaging from the assets created, at a sensible pace consistent with the market. Our object, as I indicated at the outset, is to make the new towns as much as possible like our thriving, successful, older towns.

487
Before I close, I should like to say a word about the new town chairmen, their boards, and also the new town staff: the noble Lord, Lord Graham, mentioned this matter. We have discussed this afternoon a Bill which will take the new towns programme through to completion. But we should not have reached this stage—a stage where, whatever our political differences, we can all agree that the new towns have done a fine job—were it not for the commitment and dedication of all these people. The same applies to the urban development corporations. The noble Lord, Lord Graham, castigated me for not mentioning them enough. As these press ahead with their valuable work, the same can apply.
As Thucydides put it:
"It is men not wars which make a city".
I tried to find this in my Greek Bible, but could not. The development corporation staffs, the people who live in the towns and those who work there, all have a major contribution to make. Without them, our common aim of balanced, thriving communities could not be achieved. Our role, here and now, is to set up the right framework. We believe the Bill does that. I am confident that all the staff will keep up the good work and will steer the towns through the final phase with all the commitment and energy that they have shown through the years, and I look forward at Committee stage to seeing whether this House can improve the Bill in any way.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Charities Bill [H.L.]
5.24 p.m.
Viscount Colville of Culross: 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.—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Submission of, and publicity for, charities' accounts]:
Lord Renton Lord Renton moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 5, leave out subsection (1).
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 1, and I suggest that, with it, we take Amendment No. 2 and Amendment No. 54, which will also be consequential.
Amendment No. 2: Page 1, line 17, leave out ("such a charity") and insert ("a local charity for the relief of poverty").
Amendment No. 54: After Clause 5, insert the following new clause:
Application of s. 43 of 1960 Act.
(" . Section 43 of the Act of 1960 shall have effect for the purposes of this Act as it does for the purposes of that Act.").
May I say that these amendments and others which I have tabled in my own name are mainly technical and drafting and have been drafted by a member of the Chancery Bar who is, so far as I know, one of the greatest experts on charity law? Amendment No. 1 is simply to leave out subsection (1). The reason that is suggested is that it is unnecessary, because all that is required in the making of new regulations, which of course would have to be made, is to apply Section 43 of the Charities Act 1960. I should like briefly to draw your Lordships' Committee's attention to it. I think I should read out subsection (2), which is so clear, so direct, so short, and, if I may say so, so beautifully drafted. It says:
"Regulations may be made for prescribing anything which is required or authorised by this Act to be prescribed".
It seems to me that to go into the detail which is set out in subsection (1) is quite unnecessary, in view of what is stated in subsection (2) of Section 43 of the 1960 Act.
Of course, I must deal with the point which no doubt will be raised in regard to re-writing or amplifying the Secretary of State's power. Subsection (1) says that it shall include power,

"(a) to prescribe the forms in which … statements are to be transmitted, and

(b) to require any such statements to include an itemised schedule … of all property currently held for the purposes of the charity, with an estimated value assigned to each item".

The Secretary of State has power to do that, if we apply Section 43 of the 1960 Act. For us to go into this quasi-administrative detail seems to be quite unnecessary. Therefore, I would suggest that subsection (1) should be omitted.
Before I go any further, I should acknowledge my indebtedness, and perhaps that of other Members of your Lordships' Committee, to the noble and learned, Lord Brightman, to whom last week I sent a note explaining the purpose of this amendment and my other amendments. With great alacrity and immense speed, and with his usual efficiency, he was good enough to send me a note. I think I should leave it to him to amplify the point of view which he expressed in that. But I want to say this. He referred me to paragraph 91 of the Report of the Select Committee upon which this Bill is based. If we refer to paragraph 91, we find this:
"The Committee recommend that requirements with regard to the content of the accounts be improved by a revision of the Charities (Statements of Account) Regulations 1960 so as to give greater authority to Charity Commission Forms AC(A) and AC(B)".
But then—and this is the particular point which I think should be stressed—the committee went on to say this:
"The Committee prefer not to prescribe the detailed provisions of such Regulations, which should be made at the discretion of the Secretary of State under s. 43 of the Charities Act 1960".
But they do recommend,
"that in the case of local charities for relief of poverty"—
which is what we are dealing with here—
"the Secretary of State should have power to prescribe the forms".
They also recommend the itemised schedule to which I have referred, which is in paragraph (b) of the subsection.
5.30 p.m.
It seems to me that the wishes and recommendations of the Committee would be perfectly well met if we use the power which is in Section 43. But there would have to be a minor consequential amendment (Amendment No. 2) and another consequential amendment (Amendment No. 54), to which I should quickly and briefly like to refer.
Amendment No. 54 appears at the bottom of page 5 of the Marshalled List. It says:
"Section 43 of the Act of 1960 shall have effect for the purposes of this Act as it does for the purposes of that Act".
I beg to move.
Lord Denning: I hope that your Lordships will not accept this amendment. It takes out one of the most important provisions of the Bill. When the Select Committee reported they showed how important it was that the existing lassitude should be remedied. They said that that was most urgent. They said at paragraph 90:
"The Committee … are satisfied on the basis of the evidence that there is an overwhelming need to remedy this state of affairs. They think that this can best be done by putting trustees of parochial and local charities for relief of poverty under a stricter duty with regard to the contents of accounts; creating a greater expectation that they be compiled and transmitted; and ensuring that they receive a wider dissemination".
Certainly I would agree with my noble friend Lord Renton that the Secretary of State has power already. If we construe Section 43 of the 1960 Act, we find the power is there. But it is very important to give the Secretary of State a prod, to tell him what he ought to do—in effect to tell him that his regulations should provide for these matters as is set out in Section 1. I have no doubt that if he were given that prod he would do it and therefore would carry out the recommendation which the Select Committee have put forward. I hope that your Lordships will not accept the amendment.
Viscount Colville of Culross: I entirely appreciate the reason why my noble friend Lord Renton has tabled this amendment, and certainly it would not be my wish to complicate the Bill any more than is necessary. There are, however—and were in the view of the Select Committee—certain possible defects which suggest that we ought to put this matter beyond doubt in very much the way in which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, has just suggested.
In the first place, although the general power to make regulations appears in Section 43 of the 1960 Act, the power to require particular statements of accounts in fact appears in Section 8. Section 8 does not say anything about forms of account at all; it does not make it clear that the Secretary of State can apply his mind to the particular form of account that is necessary in order to provide the statistics which in all the deliberations of the Select Committee were found to be so woefully lacking or at any rate woefully out of date. If there is not a specific power to prescribe forms, it seemed to the Select Committee that it was worthwhile putting it in the Bill. I would also suggest to my noble friend Lord Renton that there is another technical reason, and this one may possibly appeal to him even more.
490
My noble friend rightly referred to the fact that this clause relates to a limited selection of charities for the relief of poverty. Under the 1960 Act and the provisions which relate to regulations, there is no provision—as sometimes occurs in more modern legislation—that regulations could be made for different purposes and in different forms. In other words, there is no clear provision in the existing legislation for this particular small group of charities and, for all we know, for them alone (because there is no evidence whatever about what is needed for other forms of charities); there is no specific provision for the Secretary of State to be able to make regulations which apply only to them.
As I said to your Lordships on Second Reading, it is no part of this Bill to carry out a major reform of charity law as a whole. The target is a very specific one: the small charities. If there is any doubt about it, it seemed to my colleagues who sat on the Select Committee—and it certainly still seems to me, even though I have heard what my noble friend has to say—that it would be infinitely desirable to make it clear beyond peradventure that the Secretary of State has indeed the power to make this specific form of regulations for these particular charities. Therefore, if we leave this provision in the Bill, he will have it beyond a doubt. If we do not do so I think that there are legal reasons for it not to be absolutely certain that he can do what I believe all of us, including my noble friend, wants. So I would urge your Lordships not to accept this amendment. I hope that my noble friend will withdraw it for the reasons that I have given.
Lord Renton: I certainly do not intend to press this amendment. I take note of what has been said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, and by my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross. But I must make the following comment before I withdraw the amendment. I think that both of their speeches—and I say this with deep respect—reveal a woeful lack of confidence in the Home Secretary and his advisers, including the commissioners. It is a sad situation if Parliament is to go into quasi-administrative details in legislation, because that shows such a lack of confidence in those who have the responsibility of keeping an eye on this branch of the law or on any other branch of the law. However, having said that, and saying it I trust without rancour, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 2 not moved.]
Lord Renton Lord Renton moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 18, after ("annually") insert ("by the charity trustees")
The noble Lord said: This is purely a drafting amendment and I think that it is so self-explanatory that it needs no further explanation from me. I beg to move.
Lord Colville of Culross: It is so obviously correct that I have no hesitation in accepting it.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Renton Lord Renton moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 1, line 19, leave out from ("authority") to end of subsection (2) and insert ("as well as to the parish council or the chairman of the parish meeting as the case may be.").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of Amendment No. 4 is to ensure that parish councillors shall be given the right to receive the statement of accounts direct from the charity trustees. I understand that they have that right at present. If we are to make things clear in the Bill, then this is something that we should make clear beyond doubt. So often parish councillors are asked to appoint a trustee or trustees. In those circumstances, I suggest that it must be right for them to be given the accounts direct. Accordingly, I beg to move.
Lord Denning: For many years I was president of the National Association of Parish Councils. I have been president of the Hampshire Association of Parish Councils. They are the best possible people to overlook these charities and to ensure that things go well. I always told them that, like a judge, they ought to be independent of party politics. They were all very good; they were absolutely at the grass roots and able to look after their local affairs. Who better to receive the accounts of these small charities than the parish councils? They do not have too much to do. I learned what they had to do and they did it extremely well.
When we passed the Act about footpaths, they mapped out their footpaths; they look after the bus shelters and so on. Apart from that, they do not have enough to do or as much power as they ought to have. Why not let them be recognised? They are the grassroots people to supervise these little local charities. They take a great interest in them. Let them have the accounts direct. Let them have a voice in the matter. It will be good for them and good for the charities. I support the amendment.
Viscount Colville of Culross: This is a difficult point. I know that the National Association of Local Councils, which is the current body—
Lord Denning: Perhaps I may interrupt with a few words. That association produces an excellent magazine or periodical which is circulated to all local councils. So if publicity were to be given to this matter, all these people would know about it; it could be sent to all the parish councils. That is the point that I want to make.
Viscount Colville of Culross: I was simply about to say that I have received representations from that association. As a matter of fact, I did not reach the stage of becoming its president, but I was a vice-president for a time and so I have considerable sympathy with what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, has said.
When deciding upon the drafting of the Bill the problem that faced the Select Committee was as follows. The whole object of this little piece of legislation is to try to make matters as easy as possible for the trustees. Under Clause 1(3) they have to send their statement of account to the appropriate local authority, which would probably be the district council. Of course, anyone else can ask for a copy and
492
from the way in which the Bill is drafted, there is a great incentive for anyone, including a parish council or a community council in Wales, to ask the trustees for a copy of the accounts until they have carried out the obligation to send a copy probably to the district council, whereupon it becomes the repository and would be responsible for providing other people with copies.
The object of the whole exercise was to try to impose one simplified form of accountability upon the trustees and to make it in such a form that, if they once filed one set of accounts, thereafter they would not have to bother with the matter any more because people could go—and it is not usually very far—to the district council office and obtain a copy there. That seemed to us to be an incentive to them to do what, alas, is so often not done—to make locally available every year a statement of their accounts which everyone can look at.
Like so many of the matters in the Bill, this is an experimental provision. If, for one reason or another, it should turn out that the parish council or the community council is not succeeding in obtaining a copy of the accounts—either because it cannot get to the district council or perhaps because the trustees do not obey the law and provide a copy upon request—there are powers in subsection (3)(c) of this clause for the Secretary of State to make regulations which would allow him for instance, to require the trustees to send a copy to the parish council, because that is another local authority.
However, the Select Committee thought that it would try the simple way first. Very far from having no confidence in the Home Secretary and his advisers—which my noble friend Lord Renton suggested just now—we think that the Home Secretary would readily respond with alacrity to any widespread complaint that parish councils were not receiving copies of these accounts under the primary system that we have set out in the Bill. If that were to occur, he could make the regulations which would restore the present position whereby the parish councils are entitled to a copy.
Therefore, we thought that the best way was to try it empirically, to see whether this stick and carrot system, as it were, would work; then, if it did not, we had still provided a reserve power so that the parish council would be able to obtain its copy. I hope that that will satisfy my noble friend. We want to make matters as easy as possible for the trustees of the very small charities, so that at last we obtain public information on a sufficient scale to enable sensible judgments to be made on a matter which so far I am afraid is very obscure.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon: I very much agree with everything which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, said and I can see my noble friend's point about trying to make the Bill simple. If this had been a case of something being included in the Bill which did not exist before, or if that is what my noble friend is suggesting in his amendment, I could understand it. But surely the Bill is taking away from the parish councils a right which they already have

493
under the 1966 Act. That seems to me to be rather a heavy-handed thing to do. I really cannot see any justification for it, and I hope that my noble friend Lord Colville might think again about this.
Lord Renton: I, too, hope that my noble friend Lord Colville will think again about this. He acknowledges that parish councillors should have the right to receive the accounts if they wish. But he suggests that this admirable objective should be achieved by taking, so to speak, two bites at the cherry. The first bite is to leave them to ask the district council for a copy and, if that does not work in general, then the Secretary of State will be asked to make regulations, which will then have to be laid before Parliament. I suggest that that is a much more cumbersome way of establishing the right than for us to accept this simple amendment.
I should like to add just one remark. It was all right in the days when, for example, in my old constituency there were no fewer than nine district and borough councils; but now all those nine councils are covered by one district council—a great bureaucracy. I cannot feel confident that there will be quite the same opportunity for the many parish councils in that district—and there are about 60 of them—to obtain satisfaction from this large district council as there used to be under the old aegis. Therefore, I must ask my noble friend Lord Colville to think again about this matter and to bear in mind what has been said by the noble and learned Lord and by my noble friend Lord Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon.
Baroness Trumpington: Perhaps I may say a few words on behalf of the Government in order to get the Government's position clear. The Government believe that the effect of the amendment will be to place a further unnecessary administrative burden on the trustees of parochial charities by requiring them to send their accounts to two local authorities.
As my noble friend Lord Colville has already said, there is provision in the Bill for the Secretary of State, by regulation, to require the local authority which receives the accounts to send them to any other local authority specified in the regulations. We appreciate the concern that parish councils should be informed about the local charities in their areas, but we do not consider that this should be required by law. If, in the event, this view is mistaken, the situation can be remedied by means of subsequent regulations which, as my noble friend Lord Renton has said, would not be cumbersome.
Lord Renton: Had I known that my noble friend Lady Trumpington was about to intervene, I should not have made my second intervention. Having heard my noble friend, may I say again that I am surprised, because it is acknowledged, that, if they want them, these parish councillors should have copies. That is acknowledged by my noble friend Lady Trumpington. But that is not unnecessary duplication. Indeed, this amendment suggests that trouble would be avoided by simply requiring the charity trustees to do as they are obliged to do at present, and to send a copy of the accounts to the parish council. It does not seem to me to be very much to ask.
Lord Wilberforce: I just want to raise one point for clarification. I have probably completely missed the point and, if so, I ask the indulgence of the Committee. Clause 1 does not deal with parish charities; it deals with local charities. To find out what a local charity is one has to turn to Clause 6(1)(b)(i), and one finds that that is one which falls within an area. It has to be an area greater than a parish. It has to fall,
"within not more than 5 adjoining parishes".
Therefore, a local charity is not coincident with a particular parish. It may extend over several parishes.
I wonder whether that is not an argument for not imposing on the trustees the duty of finding out which is the relevant parish, of sending it to possibly two parishes, or three or four, which does seem to complicate their task, if I have the point right, but it may be that I have not understood the mechanism.
Lord Airedale: That was the speech which it was on the tip of my tongue to deliver.
Lord Brightman: May I say a brief word against this amendment? The trustees will already be required to send their accounts centrally to the Charity Commission. One single local filing centre would seem to be adequate for all reasonable purposes. The scheme of the Bill is to make the appropriate local authority the local filing centre. It seems to me that it is not really a necessary burden to impose on charity trustees that they have to file their accounts a second time locally. It should be sufficient for the parish council to ask the local authority for a copy of the accounts under Clause 1(4)(b).
Viscount Colville of Culross: I have listened carefully to this debate. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, and the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, are of course absolutely right. It could be a good deal more than one parish council which has to receive a copy of these accounts. What I should like to do is to see how effective has been the duty imposed under the present law. I do not know whether it is going to be possible to find out, but efforts could at least be made.
There has been a statutory duty now for 25 years for all these charities to file their accounts with the parish councils. The fact remains that whether they have done it or not the ignorance about the financial status of this sort of charity is absolutely staggering. It suggests to me that, whether or not the parish councils have had the power to receive the accounts, they have not enforced it. They just have not been using it, and they have not been requiring the local charities in their parish, or in their locality, to send in the accounts so that there is some idea of what is the sort of sum of money both in terms of capital and income with which we are purporting to deal. We thought that it was much more likely that the district council would be more firm about this and that it would make certain that these accounts were filed annually.
I should like to take this back, as my noble friend has suggested, and see whether it really looks as though it would add to the information collecting function of this Bill, which would greatly assist the Charity Commissioners as well, if we introduced this further duty on the trustees. I believe there is a balance here. I do not think that they should be overburdened or

495
they will not fulfil the law, as I am afraid they have so often not done in the past. There is a point to be looked at here. If my noble friend will leave it with me, I shall make such inquiries as I possibly can before the next stage of the Bill.
Lord Renton: I am grateful to my noble friend for his constructive suggestion. I too should like to consider with care what has been said in this debate. Perhaps we can have a discussion about it between now and Report stage. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Hooson Lord Hooson moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 2, line 3, leave out ("2") and insert ("12")
The noble Lord said: As regards the time during which local authorities must hang on to the statement of accounts sent to them under the provisions of Clause 1(3), it seems to me more sensible that this should be 12 years rather than two. The purpose of the local authority hanging on to the statement of accounts, among other things, is that the statement should be open to public inspection. There is no provision requiring the local authority at the end of the proposed two-year period to pass the accounts to the Charity Commissioners in the first place.
Therefore both nationally and in the local authority areas it will be desirable to monitor the results of this piece of legislation during the course of the next decade. It seems to me it would be more sensible to require the local authority to keep the accounts for 12 years rather than two. I cannot see that this would impose any burden upon them. I beg to move.
Viscount Colville of Culross: Again, this is very much a matter of judgment. The existing provision for the retention of accounts is in Section 32(2) of the 1960 Act, and at that time Parliament, in its wisdom, said seven years. The noble Lord, Lord Hooson, said 12, and we say two.
The real problem is to get the balance right between a retention of the accounts locally for a sufficient period of time perhaps to collect statistics in the way that the noble Lord has said, and any possible resource implications which might fall upon local authorities to add to their storing system, their files, their methods of retrieval, and that sort of thing, at a time when, as every single Member of this House will know, local authorities are under considerable financial stringency.
The noble Lord, in putting forward a 12-year period, would be adding something quite substantial, particularly in view of the point made by my noble friend Lord Renton that the district councils may now well have a largish number of these charities within their area. It is a matter for the noble Lord to weigh up.
If this matter is properly dealt with in accordance with the existing law and this Bill, there ought to be copies with the Charity Commissioners for at least seven years, which would enable research to take place, and not least if the Charity Commission could only get their computer. I wonder whether there is any additional advantage in making a requirement for it to
496
be kept for yet a further period of years in a scattered form round the country in the hands of the local authorities. I have no strong views about it, but I think it could prove to be a burden that the local authorities would not welcome.
Lord Brightman: There is a statutory period for the retention of accounts by charity trustees, but I think I am correct in saying that there is no statutory period for the retention of accounts by the Charity Commissioners. I have been informed by the Charity Commissioners that in fact they retain accounts of charities indefinitely, and that they have never yet thrown away a set of accounts.
The result of that is that if any member of the public wishes to see the antique accounts of a charity he can always go to the Charity Commission and obtain a copy. It would therefore seem unnecessary for the accounts to be retained locally encumbering the warehouses of local authorities for a longer period than two years.
Lord Hooson: In the light of that information, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Colville of Culross Viscount Colville of Culross moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 2, line 5, at end insert ("and")
The noble Viscount said: These two are technical drafting amendments.
Amendment No. 7: Page 2, line 8, leave out ("and (c)") and insert ("(3A)")
What has happened is that, if your Lordships will look at subsection (3), you will see that at the present moment there are three paragraphs which make certain requirements. They begin at line 3 of page 2 with the words "during that period".
"during that period—
(a) the statement shall be open to public inspection at all reasonable times".
That is fine. And,
"during that period—
(b) the authority shall, on the request of any person, supply to him a copy of the statement".
That is fine. But I do not think it is sensible to require the Secretary of State to make any necessary regulations "during that period". He may want to make them at any time, for the sort of reasons we were discussing just now.
It therefore seems better to split up the subsection as it stands and turn it into two subsections so that what is now (c) will stand in its own right not qualified by any period of time during which action has to be taken. Therefore we should have (3)(a) and (b), and then we should have a new subsection which contains the present paragraph (c). I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Colville of Culross Viscount Colville of Culross moved Amendment No. 7:
[Printed above.]
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 8 not moved.]
6 p.m.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Wootton of Abinger): I have to point out before I call Amendment No. 9 that if this amendment is agreed to I shall be unable to put Amendments Nos. 10 or 11.
Lord Renton Lord Renton moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 2, line 26, leave out subsection (5).
The noble Lord said: I will bear in mind what the noble Baroness the Deputy Chairman has just said about its effect on Amendments Nos. 10 and 11, but I think that your Lordships might wish to consider Amendment No. 9. The point that arises is that Clause 1(5) appears to be unnecessary as it is always open to anyone to make representations to the Charity Commissioners to the effect that charity trustees are in default.
This is an exploratory amendment. If your Lordships feel that the subsection should stand, if only to enable Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 to be discussed, I would not press it any further, but the subsection appears to be unnecessary. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: The Question is that Amendment No. 9 be agreed to.
Lord Renton: With great respect, what we need to have put now is that the amendment is proposed. It is not a question of putting the Question just yet. I have moved the amendment: it is now for the Deputy Chairman to say, "Amendment proposed…".
Viscount Colville of Culross: May I proceed on the basis that that is what the noble Baroness the Deputy Chairman has done? When the Select Committee decided that subsection (5) should be included we did not overlook the point that my noble friend has made about the ability of everybody to make a request to the Charity Commissioners. The trouble about it is that on the whole they do not very much. The Charity Commissioners do not have the facilities to check for themselves whether the charity trustees have put in their accounts for the year. If the Charity Commissioners were to be asked about any one specific charity they would look up their files and would immediately and willingly say whether that was so. There is no question of recalcitrance on their part, but they do not make an automatic check every year to see whether trustees have submitted their accounts.
It seemed to the Select Committee that a number of people locally, with the interests that this legislation may, with luck, arouse, may wish to know the current situation. Therefore, it is to underline the power of members of the public to ask the Charity Commissioners whether the trustees are in default.
Of course, certain people can make a complaint—and that will be extended under another provision in the Bill—under Sections 18 and 19 of the 1960 Act, but we thought that this would reinforce the power of the public to try to put pressure on the trustees of a charity to ensure that they fulfilled their duty. We think that from the psychological point of view this is worth having in the Bill.
Lord Renton: I am most grateful to my noble friend, and in view of what he says I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Denning Lord Denning moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 2, line 26, after first ("to") insert ("the appropriate local authority or")
The noble and learned Lord said: As my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross said, in a way this clause is to enable some sort of pressure to be put upon the commission by individual members of the public to see that the obligations are fulfilled. The obligations are there to file the proper accounts and to prepare them, and for the local authority to receive them and make them available.
My amendment is designed to increase that pressure. It should not be left simply to any member of the public to take action. Surely the people to take action should be those who receive the accounts. These people are bound to receive them and to make copies of them available. They know whether the accounts are in order. Therefore, to put more pressure in the field of enforcing the accounts, instead of having only the phrase "open to any person", any member of the public, I should like to insert the provision that "the appropriate local authority" themselves may do it. They are the people who receive the accounts; they can see whether they are in order; and, if the regulations are not complied with, they can operate the system. Why not let them be in charge? It will give them an incentive. I make it optional by saying, "to the appropriate local authority or" any member of the public. This would make pressure available to the local authority which receives the accounts to see that the rules are complied with. I beg to move.
Viscount Colville of Culross: This is the amendment that I have been dreading most of all in the entire Marshalled List, because I have to tell the noble and learned Lord that, for a very good legal reason, his amendment is unnecessary. The point is that in the Interpretation Act 1978, in Schedule 1, it is said that "person" includes,
"a body of persons corporate or unincorporate",
and that includes all local authorities. So they already have the power under the provisions of the Bill as it stands.
I hesitate to make a point of that sort to a person of the stature of the noble and learned Lord, but I promise him that it is correct and I hope he will accept it.
Lord Denning: I recognise that it is unnecessary. It is already there by virtue of the Interpretation Act, but I believe we should make it a little clearer and provide the opportunity to bring pressure on the appropriate local authority, which knows all about it. That is the point of my amendment.
Lord Renton: I hope that my noble friend Lord Colville will not submit to the learned blandishments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning. We must be well disciplined, if I may say so with deep respect, in everything that we do when legislating.

499
These words really are unnecessary. I am sorry to have to say that. I hope that on this occasion my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross will stick to his guns.
Lord Denning: In the circumstances, I will not press my amendment any further. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 11 not moved]
Lord Renton Lord Renton moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 2, line 31, leave out subsection (6) and insert—
("(6) Notwithstanding subsection (4) of section 18 of the Act of 1960, the Commissioners may exercise their jurisdiction under that section in the event of default by the trustees of a local charity for the relief of poverty for a period of at least twelve months in complying with this section or the Act of 1960.").
The noble Lord said: This is a purely technical and drafting amendment. In discussing the previous amendment, my noble friend Lord Colville referred to Section 18 of the 1960 Act. Amendment No. 12 is a redrafting of subsection (6), but with a reference to Section 18 of the Act of 1960 which I think needs to be made. I do not wish to labour the matter. If noble Lords would be so good as just to look at the wording that I propose, I think that they may see that it has an advantage in it. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I have to point out that if this amendment is agreed to I shall not be able to put Amendment No. 13.
Baroness Trumpington: The Select Committee believed that the affairs of local charities should be conducted with greater openness and that trustees should be more accountable for administering their charitable funds. The proposal that anyone should be entitled, in the case of a charity in default in respect of accounts, to make representations to the commissioners was designed, I believe, to enable defaults to be brought to the attention of the commissioners when they might not otherwise have come to their attention. This seems to be a positive and reasonable reform.
Viscount Colville of Culross: I appreciate the reasons why my noble friend Lord Renton has moved this. I think that, to some extent, we are in a bit of a drafting muddle here, because there is no doubt that it would be very desirable to include a reference to Section 19 because the powers of the commissioners to act in the case of default are comprised in both Sections 18 and 19 and they might want to use one or the other or, conceivably, both.
For the moment, what I should like to do, if my noble friend agrees, is to see whether I can persuade the committee to accept Amendment No. 13, to see how that looks on paper and then. perhaps, just go back and look at his Amendment No. 12 to see whether there is any further improvement that could be derived from that. I should be extremely unhappy not to get in at this stage the reference to Section 19 that we have under the next amendment. I wonder whether we may do it in that way.
Lord Renton: I am most grateful to my noble friend. I think that he has made a wise and constructive suggestion, which I greatly welcome. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Colville of Culross Viscount Colville of Culross moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 2, line 36, after ("1960") insert ("or settle a scheme under section 19 of that Act").
The noble Viscount said: I have really just dealt with this. It extends the powers of the Commissioners under this Bill to deal with defaults under Section 19 of the 1960 Act as well as under Section 18. The point of it is this. At the moment there is a limitation on the sorts of people who can make application under these two sections. What we are doing in this Bill is to throw it open to anybody, including indeed the local authorities, as we have just been discussing. Therefore, it seems that they should have, at the invitation of anybody who has a justifiable complaint, the full range of powers to use as they think fit under the 1960 Act. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
6.15 p.m.
Viscount Colville of Culross Viscount Colville of Culross moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 2, line 36, at end insert—
("(7) This section does not apply to an exempt charity.").
The noble Viscount said: I wonder whether I may deal with the question of exempt charities all in one go without getting into the most staggering muddle. At the present moment, the Bill has in Clause 6 a provision which leaves out any possibility of the exempt charities benefiting from any of the provisions of this Bill. The exempt charities are listed in the second schedule to the Charities Act 1960. They include a great many people who, I am quite sure, will never want to take advantage of any of these powers. But representations have been made—for instance, by one or two of the universities—that when it comes to some of the powers to change the objects of charities (which is particularly relevant under Clause 3) they could very usefully employ the provisions that are now being put forward. Therefore the decision has been made to deal with exempt charities clause by clause.
This is the first provision of this sort and it has been thought that Clause 1 of the Bill should not apply to any exempt charity and that it should therefore remain as the original draft stood. However, when we get to Clause 2—and that is covered by Amendment No. 28(11)—there is a specific provision which has a slightly different effect. It withdraws again any application from an exempt charity or, indeed, from a charity which is a company or any other body corporate: in other words, it goes slightly further than the second schedule to the 1960 Act.
Under Clause 3, however, (which is where there has been a request for the use of the powers in this Bill) exempt charities, will, if they wish, be able to take advantage of these provisions unless they come under paragraph (g) of the second schedule. What comes under paragraph (g) in the second schedule is,
"any registered society within the meaning of the Industrial and Provident Societies Act, 1893, and any registered society or branch within the meaning of the Friendly Societies Act, 1896".

501
The reason why they do not need to have any provision made for them in this Bill is because they already have their own registrar, who can deal with all matters that would be necessary in this respect. Then, when it comes to Clause 4—and this is covered by Amendment No. 49—the same applies to any exempt charity, except the ones in paragraph (g), to which I have just referred, would be able to use these powers of their own volition. Therefore, instead of having a blanket ruling out of exempt charities it has been dealt with bit by bit all the way through the Bill. This is the first occasion. Perhaps if I explain it in that way, it will save a little time, but we still think it right that exempt charities should not be able to be involved in Clause 1. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: I feel bound to point out that this question of exempt charities and the matters with which Clause 1 deals is even more complicated than one might have judged from listening to my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross. The definition of an exempt charity is in subsection (1) of Section 45 of the 1960 Act. That says that an:
" 'exempt charity' means (subject to subsection (9) of section twenty-two of this Act) a charity comprised in the Second Schedule".
Those in the second schedule are a very odd bunch and include the universities, university colleges, the British Museum, the Church Commissioners and all other kinds of very distinguished and select bodies. But when we come to Section 22(9) of the 1960 Act, we find this rather strange provision relating to a common investment fund. It states that it,
"shall be deemed for all purposes to be a charity, and the assets of the fund shall be treated for the purposes of this Act as a permanent endowment, except that if the scheme establishing the fund admits to participation only charities not having a permanent endowment, the fund shall be treated as a charity not having a permanent endowment;".
Then we find these words:
"and if the scheme admits only exempt charities, the fund shall be an exempt charity for the purposes of this Act".
The difficulty that I experience in trying to correlate those provisions with the provisions of the Bill is that I do not see how a local charity for the relief of poverty could be an exempt charity within the meaning of the definitions in the 1960 Act. Therefore, while greatly appreciating the constructive purpose and the thoroughness with which my noble friend has moved this amendment to leave out exempt charities, I just wonder whether it is necessary at all. He might care, between now and the Report stage, to consider the possibility that it is not necessary.
Viscount Colville of Culross: I think I agree with my noble friend that it is extremely unlikely that a body which he has described and which has the form set out in Section 22(9) of the 1960 Act would come under Clause 1. Therefore, there is no disagreement between us about the impact of the amendment that I am moving, because it is not changing anything in any way. The difficulty has been to find a formula, because in the case of Clauses 3 and 4 certain sorts of charities are thought, or could be thought, to profit from being able to use the provisions of the Bill. Therefore, one has to deal with exempt charities in the other clauses
502
of the Bill where it is thought that they would not be able to profit.
We do not think they can profit under Clauses 1 or 2, so it is specifically being said in each case. Therefore, when you come to Clauses 3 and 4 you say which exempt charity may be able to use the provisions. That is the way that this has been done, and it is part of the pattern. Of course I will look at anything again; but I in fact believe that this is all right, although I would be the first to admit that it is extremely complicated.
Lord Renton: I appreciate what my noble friend means, and I appreciate what he is saying, but I really think that his purpose might be better achieved by having an amendment to Clause 6, which would then enable the application of exempt charities to the various provisions of this Bill in its various clauses to be clearly stated in one place, rather than picking out their application to individual clauses one by one, as it seems he is intending to do.
Viscount Colville of Culross: I will look at that. It was really exactly from that sort of formula that we departed in embarking upon this series of amendments. But, pending that, I should like to make it abundantly clear that exempt charities are not within the scope of Clause 1 and so I hope that this amendment could go into this Bill this evening.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 1, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: I should like to make one general point, but first I should like to apologise to your Lordships for the disappointment that you must be feeling that it is me at this Dispatch Box instead of my noble friend Lord Mishcon, with all his wealth of experience. However, he is out of the country today and so is unable to be here. All I can say is that I hope your Lordships will take advantage of the fact that I must be very representative of a lot of lay trustees who will be very much affected by the provisons of this Bill. Perhaps they can use me as a measuring stick as to how much comprehension will be inspired by the Bill itself. I think it is true to say that wide comprehension of this Bill is an essential criterion for its success.
Just on a very general note, I should like to stress that we on these Benches entirly support the provisions in the clause, which are there purely for the purpose of stimulating local interest in the local charities, which are there for the relief of poverty, and also to call attention to the charitable monies which are available and of which they may not previously have been aware.
Finally, of course we fully support the measures proposed to ensure a greater accountability on the part of local charities. Our only fear could possibly be, knowing the sensitivities of people who run charities and those who are the trustees of charities, that their sensitivities should not be upset by the greater accountability they are asked to give. There should be a balance between respecting the sensitivities and bringing greater accountability in respect of their affairs, which is clearly so necessary.
Viscount Colville of Culross: I am perfectly certain that I speak for everybody in this Committee when I welcome the noble Baroness to the Dispatch Box to speak on this Bill—and a very good point she has made. There does need to be a balance, and certainly the members of the Select Committee were very well aware of the susceptibilities of local charity trustees.
There is, however, the other point of view; namely, that they are handling what is effectively public money. As I think I said on Second Reading, if it is money which is derived from income they receive tax relief, so that it is public money which is being provided for at the expense of the rest of the taxpayers. I think that accountability, in these circumstances, is not something too unreasonable for which to ask.
As for the complexities of the subject, I am very pleased to see that the Charity Commission have already issued a sort of provisional pamphlet which explains what is in the Bill. It has been widely distributed; and I have no doubt that there will be other explanatory material coming forward if in fact the Bill is able to survive its parliamentary course. I welcome the noble Baroness's contribution very much indeed.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 [Resolution by trustees of old charity to alter objects]:
Viscount Colville of Culross Viscount Colville of Culross moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 2, line 37, after ("applies") insert ("subject to subsection (11) below")
The noble Viscount said: This is a paving amendment for the passage about exempt charities in Clause 2, and I have already explained it. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hooson Lord Hooson moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 2, line 38, after ("poverty") insert ("or a registered charity (not being an ecclesiastical charity) of which the gross income in the preceding accounting period was £200 or less,").
The noble Lord said: As a mere common lawyer, I move very gingerly in the realm of charities. My purpose in moving this amendment is to discover why charities within the ambit of Clause 3 should not also use as an option the mechanics of Clause 2. Clause 2 at present applies only to poverty charities which are at least 50 years old. They can alter their objects in order to re-invigorate themselves. Clause 3, on the other hand, is not confined to poverty charities. There is no time limit but there is a financial limit: that is, an income of £200 or less in the previous year. However, the only right that Clause 3 gives is effectively to wind up the charity altogether by transferring its assets to another charity. I can think of no reason why they should not be given the option of going down the Clause 2 route of amending their own objects, rather than winding up. I have excluded ecclesiastical charities from the amendment. It seems to me on the face of it—and I am open to conviction the other way—that this would be an important and constructive change in the Bill. I beg to move.
Viscount Colville of Culross: I, too, looked upon it as being a constructive approach until I thought a little further and took some advice. The primary purpose of Clause 2 is to deal with the very obsolescent charities whose original donors had in mind some specific beneficiary of a sort which either does not now exist or does not cover adequately the provisions of poverty in an area. Therefore, it was particularly susceptible as a subject for changing the objects of the charity. That is why in Clause 2 one concentrates on this type of charity.
6.30 p.m.
It is perfectly true that there could well be other obsolete charities whose objects ought to be reconsidered. They can be, of course, under the existing law, because, although it is rather more difficult than the do-it-yourself scheme that the Bill produces, they can go to the Charity Commissioners who can make schemes and other alterations in accordance with the existing law. But the advice that I have been given really turns on the resource implications of what this would mean, because according to such calculations as can be made—and I agree that it is not entirely easy—there will be something like a seven-fold increase in the number of charities who will be eligible if this amendment is accepted.
The Charity Commission have been very cooperative about the preparation of this Bill, and I wish to pay full tribute to them. What they have said is that they have a very strict limit on the amount of resources that they could possibly spare in addition to what they are already employing. They think that they can just about handle the number of applications which would be likely to arise under Clauses 2 and 3 as they are at present drafted. But if one added seven-fold to the possibility of applications for trustees to change their objects under Clause 2, then I think we would run into a position where the Charity Commission would say that, alas! they could not cope.
The whole essence of this piece of legislation is that it has been constructed in conjunction with the Charity Commission and with the Home Office so as to lie within the bounds of possiblity of what they can cope with. I believe that unless we remain within those bounds we shall produce a measure which will not have the effect that we want and which, indeed, might draw criticism about the diversion of resources away from other things that may be thought more desirable. So although I very much take the noble Lord's point, I think that for that very important, and indeed sometimes central, practical reason of the amount of money that would be involved, I am afraid that I have to resist this amendment.
Lord Hooson: I very much regret that we are not taking advantage of this Bill. We always tend to have an over-cautious approach with regard to charities, and it would seem very sensible if we could incorporate this amendment within the Bill. But if there is an important resource implication which really cannot be met, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Hooson Lord Hooson moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 3, line 3, leave out ("impossible") and insert ("impractical").
The noble Lord said: This is a very simple amendment. It seems to me that very little in this life is strictly impossible, and a change of word would mean a slight reduction in the number of formidable hoops through which trustees will have to go in order to get the remedy presented by this clause. It seems to me that the intention is to consider impracticality rather than impossibility, and the word "impossible" seems unnecessary here. I beg to move.
Lord Airedale: I wonder whether my noble friend will think that "impractical" is nearer in meaning to "lacking in usefulness" than to "impossible", and whether he might consider at the next stage of the Bill, if he thinks that "impractical" is a more elegant word, swapping "impractical" for "lacking in usefulness", rather than swapping it for "impossible".
Viscount Colville of Culross: There is another point. I hope that I shall not be accused of being flippant, but this was part of the evidence that was brought before the committee. One of the larger funds has taken over the administration of a charity which is for the benefit of the ladies of Paddington. The people who run this organisation have found it extremely difficult to define the ladies of Paddington—at least to the extent of avoiding trouble with the police. They have had to produce a device whereby in their accounts for each year they set aside a certain amount of money which could be provided for the ladies of Paddington if they ever found any—I think that the ladies of Paddington are described by some sort of adjective as well—and at the end of the year, because they have never found one, they distribute it among the other beneficiaries who are entitled. In that case, I think that the object is impossible and therefore there is some point in having this word in. If the noble Lord would like to consider changing "impractical" in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, suggested, I certainly would have no objection, but I believe that there are real cases of impossibility.
Lord Renton: If I may add one postscript to that, as I understand it, traditionally the powers of the court with regard to objects which have failed, for example, relate to their having failed, and they have failed because it is impossible to achieve them, not because it is impractical to achieve them.
Lord Hooson: The contribution of the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, seems to indicate that it might be impractical to find ladies of Paddington but surely not impossible. It seems to me that he underlined the very point that I seek to make; namely, that it would be better here to have the word "impractical" rather than the word "impossible", because very few things in this world are impossible of achievement. I shall bear in mind the suggestion of my noble friend that I should reconsider this matter before the next stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Colville of Culross Viscount Colville of Culross moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 3, line 15, leave out ("so set out") and insert ("of the charity").
The noble Viscount said: This is simply a drafting amendment. It clears up and makes a good deal more obvious what is meant by the text. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Faithfull Baroness Faithfull moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 3, line 15, after ("charitable") insert ("and for the relief of poverty").
The noble Baroness said: Like the noble Lord, Lord Renton, I should like to thank my noble and learned friend Lord Brightman for his help with my amendments. The intention of this amendment is first, that a local charity for the relief of poverty with obsolete objects shall not alter its objects in such a way that the new objects cease to be for the relief of poverty; and, secondly, that where a small charity which desires to transfer its assets to another charity is a charity for the relief of poverty, the objects of the transferee charity must also be for the relief of poverty.
I quite realise that it could be said that under Clauses 2(3) and 3(2)(b) of the Bill as drawn this is explicit; that there is no need for this amendment and that it is written in that these charities shall be consistent with the spirit of the original gift. My amendment in no way alters the Bill, but it dots the "i's" and crosses the "t's".
Those of us who have attended parochial parish meetings and meetings of trustees know that if we are very anxious to have something it is possible to convince oneself and to turn something round in order to fall in with, perhaps, the spirit of the original gift. For example, there is one charity where the vicar is paid £5 for preaching a sermon and the churchwarden is paid 10 shillings for listening to it. Do they fall within the realm of poverty? The vicar, I am quite sure, and many churchwardens, will agree that they do. Therefore my amendment is simply to make it absolutely clear to everyone concerned, and to place beyond doubt, exactly what the Bill means. As I say, it does not alter the Bill; it just clarifies the situation. I beg to move.
Lord Brightman: I think that this amendment does reflect what was intended by the Bill and, if I may speculate, I think it is quite likely that the committee would have inserted those words if it had thought of them in time. Although it is perhaps not for me to support the amendment, I see no harm in it whatever.
Viscount Colville of Culross: My noble friend Lady Faithfull has entirely taken the point about the various safeguards that are provided in order to prevent the charitable money going away from the relief of poverty. There is the provision that there shall be no,
"unjustifiable departure from the intentions of the donor, or … the spirit of the gift",
and there is of course in particular the provision whereby the commissioners themselves have to look at the reasons why the trustees are proposing the change and the change to which they are proposing to go. They are not lightly going to let through something which diverts the fund away from poverty.

507
I think there is one technical difficulty about the amendment. The definition in Clause 6 states:
"References in this Act to a local charity for the relief of poverty are to a registered charity … having the following characteristics—
(a) the sole or primary object of the charity is the relief of poverty".
The difficulty about my noble friend's amendment, even if we had thought in principle of putting it into the Bill, is that it leaves out the second half of the definition and confines a charity, which previously could have had a primary object and also a secondary object, to having only a primary object. Therefore even if the noble and learned Lord. Lord Brightman, is happy with the spirit of it, I am afraid that I am a tiny bit unhappy with the drafting.
I wonder whether that is something we could look at again so that we may be absolutely sure that it does not in fact restrict the ability of the trustees to transfer their funds to what they want rather than making sure that they do it in the right way. I wonder whether my noble friend will allow me to take advice on that, because I believe it is a technical matter which needs to be sorted out.
Baroness Faithfull: I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, and to my noble friend Lord Colville. Of course I will take note of what he says. I myself do not completely understand the legal situation and I also should like to look into it. Therefore, at this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Hooson Lord Hooson moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 3, line 17, leave out subsection (3).
The noble Lord said: This is yet another probing amendment and I simply pose the question: does subsection (3) add anything to this clause? It seems to me that subsection (2) already covers this matter and that really this is a question of duplication. Is it not yet another example of the overcaution that is so often expressed when we are dealing with such things as charities?
I notice that at the end of subsection 2(b) the words,
"consistently with the spirit of the original gift",
are already there. In subsection (3) we have,
"departure from the intentions of the donor, or violate the spirit of the gift".
What really does subsection (3) add to the clause? I can see that it might provide infinite scope for trouble in the future. Of what assistance is it in the interpretation of this clause? I beg to move.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Renton: It seems to me that subsection (3) was an attempt to express the cy-prés doctrine. As to whether that is necessary or appropriate to do in this particular context, I must confess I have an open mind. I am not sure; but that seemed to be the effect of it.
Viscount Colville of Culross: I go back once again to the intention which underlies this piece of legislation.
508
The purpose is to try to enable trustees without any substantial amount of professional advice to carry out certain changes—in this case, to the objects of their charity. One could of course achieve a certain amount through the doctrine of cy-près, to which my noble friend Lord Renton has referred, but the doctrine of cy-près—nobody is a greater expert on this sort of thing than the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman—is a fairly complicated and abstruse matter and can certainly be dealt with at the moment only through the Charity Commissioners or through the courts. It was the decision as set out in the Select Committee's report that, rather than tinkering with the doctrine of cy-près as it at present stands, as it has been built up by a long series of judicial decisions, it would be better to provide an easy bypass for the cy-près doctrine in its true sense. Therefore, if trustees are going to be invited to reconsider the objects of their charity, it was I think the view of the Select Committee that they need as much guidance about the sort of things that they ought to have in mind as it is possible to give them.
It is perfectly true that subsection 2(b) refers to the,
"spirit of the original gift",
but I think if I was a lay trustee and I was faced with the possibility of changing my objects to something away from what they were, I might welcome a little more guidance than that as to what is exactly meant by something being altered,
"consistently with the spirit of the original gift':.
It was because of the audience or the constituency, as it were, to which this legislation is addressed that it was thought fit to try to spell it out a little more in subsection (3). I know that to some extent there is a repetition, but it is intended to try to set them on the right lines so that they will be able to write out the reasons in the form that appears in the schedule in a way which is consistent with what the legislation is really intending to do and in a way which will satisfy the Charity Commissioners.
In those circumstances and given that object, although I can entirely see the noble Lord's point of view about tautology, we thought it was worth while to put in these extra words and I hope that on reflection he will think that they may do some good.
Lord Brightman: I would respectfully ask that this amendment be not agreed to, because subsection (3) is intended indeed to spell out what is meant by,
"consistently with the spirit of the original gift",
in simple language that trustees can understand without incurring the expense of going to their lawyers.
As was said on the Second Reading of the Bill, the whole purpose is to make things easy for trustees, to enable them to get their house in order as easily as they can themselves without any expense and without advice. If we rely only on the words,
"consistently with the spirit of the original gift",
I am afraid that some trustees may be nervous of invoking this clause, may incur the expense of legal advice and so forth. I would respectfully ask that subsection (3) be allowed to stand.
Lord Hooson: I shall certainly bow to the far superior knowledge of the noble and learned Lord,

509
Lord Brightman, on this matter. As I said, this was a probing amendment, but he has satisfied me of the good reasons why this subsection should be allowed to remain in the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Hooson Lord Hooson moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 3, line 26, after ("unanimous") insert ("where there are four or fewer trustees but in other cases must be concurred with by not less than three quarters of the trustees (rounded up to the nearest whole number)").
The noble Lord said: This is not a probing amendment and, with the leave of the Committee, I shall also refer to Amendments Nos. 34 and 48 which stand in my name:
Amendment No. 34: Clause 3, page 5, line 17, after ("unanimous") insert ("where there are four or fewer trustees but in other cases must be concurred with by not less than three quarters of the trustees (rounded up to the nearest whole number)").
Amendment No. 48: Clause 4, page 7, line 16, after ("unanimous") insert ("where there are four or fewer trustees but in other cases must be concurred with by not less than three quarters of the trustees (rounded up to the nearest whole number)").
The wording is identical in all three amendments, covering three separate clauses. I am told that in practice it is sometimes very difficult to get a decision out of a trustee who knows very little about the affairs of a trust which is in a semi-dormant state. Sometimes it is very difficult to get a decision from a very old trustee who, as it were, is reminded of the affairs of the trust and does not want to be bothered very much. I am told that inertia is often a real problem.
The temptation for me was to table an amendment which would mean that the requirement of unanimity should apply only where there were three trustees or fewer—three in favour being sufficient, in my view. However, in the event I have been a little more cautious and accepted that the three-quarter rule which I propose should be required only where there are four or more trustees. It seems to me that this is a sensible safeguard where everything points to the necessity for a change of mind by the trustees and they are held up perhaps by one person being excessively stubborn and not willing to bother about the matter. I beg to move.
Lord Brightman: The exercise of the unique powers given to the trustees by Clauses 2 and 3 is intended to be non-controversial. If the powers can be exercised by a majority of the trustees, perhaps against the wishes of a forceful minority, then controversy will be introduced into the exercise of those powers. If there is to be controversy, I suggest that it is more appropriate that it should be dealt with either through the courts or through the Charity Commission and not by the exercise of these rather exceptional powers proposed for Clauses 2 and 3. I suggest that it is not appropriate in the context of this legislation to allow a matter which may be in dispute between the trustees to be decided by a majority against perhaps a protesting minority.
Viscount Colville of Culross: I think this is a fairly important point. I bear in mind what the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, said just now about the susceptibilities of trustees. Underlying her point was
510
that sometimes the activities of trustees in running their trusts in a small community can be a matter of very great interest and concern to members of that community. Therefore, it was one of the main safeguards built into the do-it-yourself provisions by the Select Committee, which are enshrined in the Bill, that we really ought to make sure that all the trustees agree because if there is to be a dispute, I believe that there would be the possibility of a very long-running and extremely divisive and unpleasant local row.
The accusation would always be, if anyone knew anything about it, that instead of acting on a majority, as the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, has provided for in his amendment, this matter ought to have been adjudicated upon properly by the machinery that has been set up by Parliament—either the Charity Commission or the courts—and that the trustees who have, as it were, railroaded it through had no right to take advantage of the provisions of this Bill and they ought to have listened to the person who dissents.
It is not always a matter of apathy. It is plain that apathy often plays a part and there are dormant charities and extinct charities, but sometimes there are occasions when people feel passionately on a matter of principle about what is being proposed. They could be over-ruled by the majority under the proposed amendment provided there were enough trustees. Therefore, my advice to the Committee is that we should retain the rule of unanimity and not provide for this sort of majority exercise, but do as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, suggests—which is to rely upon the existing provisions for dealing with disputes if unanimity cannot be achieved on one of these schemes.
I am afraid to say that I must say the same for all three amendments because I believe that in this case it is a matter of principle. I hope that in the circumstances the noble Lord will feel that he need not press the amendment.
Lord Hooson: I do not intend to press this amendment to a Division, but I am not convinced by the arguments I have heard. It seems to me that we take an exceptionally cautious approach on charities and one has to balance the practicalities of the matter with the desirability of unanimity; but in certain circumstances where unanimity is virtually impossible it may still be desirable that the powers given under the Bill should be exercised and it seemed that my compromise that, if four trustees are in favour, thereafter the three-quarter rule should apply, is about right to balance the practicalities of the situation with the desirability of having unanimity. However, I shall not press it to a Division. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Colville of Culross Viscount Colville of Culross moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 3, line 37, leave out ("opinion") and insert ("opinions").
The noble Viscount said: I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 22 and 23 together.
Amendment No. 23: Page 3, line 37, leave out ("subsection (2)") and insert ("subsections (2) and (3)").
The Charity Commissioners have to be convinced of the propriety of what is being proposed by the trustees. In the Bill as it stands the trustees have to tell them about the opinion that they form under subsection (2). We have just discussed subsection (3) and the way in which it elaborates upon the sort of thinking that ought to have lain behind the trustees' decision to seek an alteration in the objectives of the charity. The trustees are told that they have to form an opinion under subsection (3) as well. It seems wrong that they should not have to explain that opinion to the Charity Commissioners as well as the opinion they form under subsection (2) which relates to obsolescence, or whatever the words are to be. Therefore, these two amendments make sure that they explain both halves of their thinking in writing to the Charity Commissioners. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Colville of Culross Viscount Colville of Culross moved Amendment No. 23:
[Printed above: col. 510.]
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Airedale Lord Airedale moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 3, line 43, after ("trustees") insert ("of the charity").
The noble Lord said: This is only a drafting matter and Amendment No. 35 deals with the same point.
Amendment No. 35: Clause 3, page 5, line 35, leave out ("of the charity").
This subsection (7), and subsection (6) of Clause 3, are identical except for the curiosity that the words "of the charity" which appear in the later subsection are omitted from this one. I think there is virtue in consistency and clauses which are meant to be identical should be identical. I do not mind which way it is done, although I prefer this amendment to Amendment No. 35. If the noble Viscount prefers Amendment No. 35, I would be quite happy, but we ought to do it one way or the other. I beg to move.
Viscount Colville of Culross: As a matter of fact I prefer Amendment No. 35 because the scheme is meant to be that at the beginning of every clause when one first comes to a reference to the trustees one finds either the words "the charity trustees" or "the trustees of a charity". Thereafter, all through the rest of the clause unless there is a specific reason to differentiate between, for instance, "transferor trustees" and "transferee trustees" the Bill merely says "trustees"; in which case Clause 2 as it stands is all right. But I think that the noble Lord has a point in line 35 on page 5, because there the rule has been broken. That is why I prefer his other amendment.
May I draw the noble Lord's attention to something which I think even his eagle eye has missed, and that is another sin which has been committed on page 5, line 20, which he might care to deal with at a subsequent stage?
Lord Airedale: In that case, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, but I shall be lurking in the shadows until we come to Amendment No.35.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7 p.m.
Viscount Colville of Culross Viscount Colville of Culross moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 4, line 1, after ("section") insert ("or as to their compliance with this section").
The noble Viscount said: Another of the things that it was thought better to include within the requirements that the trustees should send to the commissioners was their compliance with the various technical provisions which are necessary under Clause 2. We shall come to exactly the same point under Clause 3. There are various requirements for notice and that sort of thing, and it seemed right that the trustees should satisfy the commissioners that they had in fact complied with all those provisions. That is what they will have to do if this amendment is passed. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Colville of Culross Viscount Colville of Culross moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 4, line 5, leave out ("within the period or) and insert ("not less than six weeks or more than").
The noble Viscount said: The Bill both under Clause 3 and under Clause 4 provides for representations to be made to the commissioners when an application is made either to vary the objects of the charity or for one of the amalgamations that can be dealt with under Clause 3. It seems perfectly ridiculous that the Charity Commissioners should be able to come to a decision on the matter before there has been time for representations to be received and considered. The suggestion in this amendment is that there should be a period of six weeks for those representations to be received and considered, and not until after that should the Charity Commisioners come to a decision about what to do. This provision is being suggested here and we shall come to a similar one at Amendment No. 37 in relation to Clause 3. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Colville of Culross Viscount Colville of Culross moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 4, line 28, leave out ("or') and insert ("specified in").
The noble Viscount said: This is a very simple point. At the present moment, when the commissioners agree to a proposal by the trustees to change their objectives, the way that the clause is drafted would mean that the objects are in law changed on the very day that the decision has been taken. That means to say that they could easily change before even the trustees know about it. It seems better that the commissioners should in their consent specify the day upon which the objects are deemed to be changed. That is the point of this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Colville of Culross Viscount Colville of Culross moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 4, line 35, at end insert—
("(11) This section does not apply to an exempt charity or a charity which is a company or other body corporate.
(12) Section 4(6)(b) of the Act of 1960 (duty to give notice etc. to the Commissioners) does not apply where the trusts of a charity are modified by virtue of this section.").
The noble Viscount said: This relates to the exempt charity part in Clause 2. Subject to the promise that I have already given to have another think about this, the new subsection (11) deals with that. There is, however, also new subsection (12), and this disapplies Section 4(6)(b) of the 1960 Act. That is a provision which places a duty on the trustees of a registered charity to inform the commissioners, among other things, of any changes in its trusts. Under the procedure that exists in Clause 2, the commissioners of course know, anyway, because they have had the application made to them and they have had all the details. They decide whether or not to agree to it. There is no point in providing an extra provision for them to be told under the existing law in Section 4(6)(b), so it is being left out. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My noble friend Lord Colville has already kindly said that he will reconsider the way in which he is asking your Lordships' Committee to deal with these exempt charities. Seeing this new subsection (11), I must confess that I am rather confirmed in the view that I put forward previously that, instead of having them dealt with in these piecemeal ways, an elegant amendment to Clause 6 would be a far better way of dealing with them.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 2, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: In spite of all the precautions that have been taken, I believe that this clause still lays a heavy responsibility on the trustees of a charity. As the noble Viscount said, it is a case where they will have to go in for a do-it-yourself operation, changing the objects of the charity. Having to work out how to adjust them while keeping them similar to the original objects and continuing to be charitable is quite a baffling task to many lay trustees. I worry about the possibility that some trustees may become very puzzled.
In spite of the assurances that the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, gave on Second Reading, I do not see what help those trustees will receive. I cannot believe that they can expect much help from the Charity Commissioners, who, with the best will in the world, are unable to respond with any speed to a request from a charity. I am merely putting myself in their shoes and thinking how difficult it might be for some of them to comply with this requirement.
I briefly, for the record, put forward a suggestion made by the director of the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, which he expressed in a letter to The Times recently and which might be of interest to the Committee. It seems to me to be very relevant. The letter welcomes the recommendations to permit the alteration of the objects of a local charity. It goes on to say:
"experience gained by NCVO suggests some practical difficulty in securing the Commissioners' consent to such alterations.
"Thus activities which trustees may not unreasonably feel to be in line with their charity's existing objects, often of an archaic nature, could fail the tests developed by the courts over the past 400 years (and by which the Charity Commissioners are themselves bound).
"It was with such considerations in mind (and not only in relation to the relief of poverty) that NCVO in its evidence to the select
514
committee stressed the great benefit to the evolution of charity law as a whole that would flow from the creation of a suitors' fund (a form of legal aid) out of which key test cases could be financed.
"Responsibility for administration could lie with the Charity Commissioners who would carefully scrutinise all applications for assistance. Aid would be given broadly on the basis of the importance of the legal points involved, the complexity of the case and the circumstances (financial or otherwise) of the organisations concerned".
The letter ends by saying:
"Soundings taken by NCVO indicate a very wide range of support in the voluntary sector for this proposal".
As I said, I can fully appreciate the need to make adjustments in the objects of a charity, but I hope that help and advice will be available for the trustees, some of whom, from my experience, are not entirely expert in and familiar with the formal language which is used in trust deeds and which they would find it helpful to be familiar with in such a case.
Viscount Colville of Culross: Of course, I agree with that. The more help that can be given, the better. Having said that, I think it will probably be easier under this legislation to carry out these changes than it is to go through the technicalities of, for instance, getting a scheme or dealing with something under the cy-près rule within the full terms of the 1960 Act.
There may be a point that the noble Baroness has missed and I think that it is an important one. If she would be so kind as to look, for instance, at page 4, Clause 2(8)(a)—it does not matter very much which clause one looks at—she will see that the commissioners have a period (and of course it is a limited period) during which they have to make up their minds on the matter. When they read the reasons for the trustees forming the opinions that they have to form under subsections (2) and (3) that we were discussing just now, those trustees opinions are to be treated as prima facie well-founded and not to be set aside in the absence of contrary considerations.
Therefore, the balance of advantage lies in favour of the decision that the trustee has made and the charity commissioners would have to have some very good reason for refusing to consent to what the trustees want to do. This is quite a subtle point but I think it puts a very great advantage in the hands of the trustees in seeking to achieve the objects that they wish to achieve or make the changes that they wish to make. I am sure that this will all be explained, but this kind of provision has been built into the legislation to provide for exactly the kind of facility that we do hope will be available to the trustees.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3 [Power for certain charity trustees to transfer whole property to another charity]:
Baroness Ewart-Biggs Baroness Ewart-Biggs moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 4, line 37, leave out ("registered").
The noble Baroness said: In speaking to Amendment No. 29, perhaps I may speak also to Amendment No. 31.
Page 4, line 38, leave out ("registered").
I am quite prepared to be shot down by the noble Viscount. Nevertheless, the reason, I have been advised, for wishing to take out the word "registered"

515
both in lines 37 and 38 of Clause 3 is as follows. The wording as it stands means that charities wishing to benefit from the Bill will have to register only to deregister straight after the transfer. The reason for removing the word "registered" when it first appears and the reason for removing it in the next line would be to prevent the new transferee charity being an exception to non-compulsory registration. My amendment makes it mandatory that they register after the transfer.
Having said that, I do realise that the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, through his amendments—Amendments Nos. 30, 31 and 32—is seeking another way of dealing with this particular case that some charities are not required to be registered. We are merely putting forward our suggestion as an alternative. At this point I should like to stress that we on these Benches are most certainly giving our support to the aim of this Bill to encourage the formalisation of the local charity system. But in the particular instance of one charity being transferred to another, we thought it most likely that the Charity Commissioners, when presented with the resolution for the transfer, would exert their influence on the transferee charity to register and that this would be the most appropriate way of ensuring that such charities agreed, of their own free will, to register with the Charity Commission.
At this particular point I think it would be highly relevant to reiterate what was said during the Second Reading by many noble Lords—and notably by the noble Lord, Lord Allen—in relation to the importance of publicity for this Bill if it is passed. Surely its success relies considerably on the fact that it should be widely known and widely understood. I know that the NCVO will play a big part in giving it publicity. However, the danger is that small rural charities—in fact, the very ones which will benefit from this Bill—will at worst ignore its existence and at best know of it but not thoroughly understand it. I beg to move.
Viscount Colville of Culross: Perhaps in dealing with this amendment I may speak to Amendments Nos. 30, 31 and 32 and in the schedules, 64 and 65.
Amendment No. 30: Page 4, line 37, after ("charity") insert ("or a charity that is not required to be registered").
Amendment No. 31: [Printed above: col. 514.]
Amendment No. 32: Page 4, line 39, after ("charity") insert ("being a registered charity or a charity that is not required to be registered").
Amendment No. 64: Schedule 2, page 10, line 13, leave out ("registered").
Amendment No. 65: Page 10, line 16, leave out ("being a charity registered under the Charities Act 1960").
Far from shooting down the noble Baroness, I wish to support her. As she will see, we are wholly at one on Amendment No. 31. The effect of my amendments—and I think this comes to exactly the same as what she has just said—is that we wish to release the restriction on registered charities being able to take advantage of Clause 3, either as transferor or as transferee charities. The present unregistered charities are the exempt ones and charities which have no permanent endowment and an income of £15 or less a year. There is absolutely no reason why the amalgamation procedures in Clause 3 should not apply to them in either direction.
Therefore we are now proposing that the provisions of the clause should be extended to charities which are not required to register and in the schedules we are changing the forms which the trustees are invited to fill in, so that the same matter is reflected there. I hope the noble Baroness will be entirely happy and that we shall be able to charge through the next two or three amendments without too much difficulty.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: I am very grateful to the noble Viscount for clarifying that and explaining it to me.
Viscount Colville of Culross: I should prefer the noble Baroness not to press Amendment No. 29. I should prefer to have the other three.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.15 p.m.
Viscount Colville of Culross Viscount Colville of Culross moved Amendment No. 30:
[Printed above.]
The noble Viscount said: I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Colville of Culross Viscount Colville of Culross moved Amendment No. 31:
[Printed above.]
The noble Viscount said: I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Colville of Culross Viscount Colville of Culross moved Amendment No. 32:
[Printed above.]
The noble Viscount said: I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Faithfull Baroness Faithfull moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 4, line 40, at end insert ("Provided that a charity for the relief of poverty shall not have power under this section to pass such a resolution for transfer to a charity which is not for the relief of poverty.").
The noble Baroness said: The arguments which I put forth on Amendment No. 19 apply to this Amendment No. 33. Therefore I shall not repeat them except to say that, taking the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, the susceptibilities of trustees are such that it would be only human if one trust wanting money and knowing that another trust wanted to give some away tried somehow or other to come to a deal and interpret the law to suit them both. Therefore it was for that reason that I thought that we ought to put in the words to make it absolutely clear:
"that a charity for the relief of poverty shall not have power under this section to pass such a resolution for transfer to a charity which is not for the relief of poverty".
I beg to move.
Baroness Trumpington: If my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross was dreading tackling the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, may I say that I have the same familiar feeling when tackling my noble friend Lady Faithfull. I have to say that the Government cannot support this amendment. We do not believe

517
that the amendment is necessary to ensure that trustees transfer their property to a charity which has objects similar to those of their own charity.
The Bill as it stands does this by requiring trustees to satisfy themselves under clause 3(2) (b),
"that the objects of the transferee charity are not so far dissimilar in character to those of the original charitable gift that the proposed transfer would constitute an unjustifiable departure from the intentions of the donor or violate the spirit of the gift".
The trustees must also of course satisfy the Charity Commissioners. Therefore, distasteful though it is for me to disagree with my noble friend, in this case I must do so.
Viscount Colville of Culross: I am sorry to say that I have to agree with my noble friend on the Front Bench. My noble friend Lady Faithfull will appreciate that in Clause 3 we have moved away from charities strictly for the relief of poverty into a much wider field. Of course I understand her concern that there should not be a transfer which takes the charitable money away from the whole field of the relief of poverty. But, for the reasons given by my noble friend Lady Trumpington, I feel that the scheme of this clause and the way in which the commissioners have power to consider and, indeed, to listen to any representations upon the proposed transfer give a completely adequate protection against any such thing happening.
Taking the point that I was making to the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, it is all very well for the trustees' opinion to be prima facie well founded and not to be set aside in the absence of contrary consideration, but one very good contrary consideration would be that the transferor charity was a charity for the relief of poverty and that the proposed transferee charity was nothing of the kind. That would be a very good reason for the charity commissioners to consider that they should not give their consent to the proposals.
I believe truly that the way in which the Bill has been drafted deals with this point. It is not a point that I wish to undermine or underestimate. It is simply that the machinery is, I think, there. I can assure my noble friend that we have thought carefully to see that no such mistake should occur. I hope that she may be content with that explanation, because there is nothing between us in the objectives that we seek.
Baroness Faithfull: I thank my noble friend Lady Trumpington, speaking from the Front Bench, and also my noble friend Lord Colville, for their explanations. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 34 not moved.]
Lord Airedale Lord Airedale moved Amendment No. 35:
[Printed earlier: col. 511.]
The noble Lord said: We discussed this when I moved Amendment No. 24. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Colville of Culross Viscount Colville of Culross moved Amendment No. 36:
Page 5, line 37, after ("section") insert ("or as to their compliance with this section")
The noble Viscount said: This is a point that we have also dealt with previously. In addition to satisfying the commissioners about the opinions that they have to form, the trustees must also satisfy them that they have complied with the provisions of this section. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Colville of Culross Viscount Colville of Culross moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 5, line 41, leave out ("within the period of") and insert ("not less than six weeks or more than")
The noble Viscount said: This is the same point about giving the commissioners time to consider representations. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Colville of Culross Viscount Colville of Culross moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 6, line 16, leave out ("copies") and insert ("a copy")
The noble Viscount said: This is drafting. There is no reason why they should send more than one copy. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Colville of Culross Viscount Colville of Culross moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 6, line 18, leave out ("then with effect from the date of the notice")
The noble Viscount said: This is the equivalent of the point about the date when the transfer is to take effect. As the Bill stands, it takes effect from the date of the notice. That could well be too early. It seems that it would be better to leave that out and to put in the words in Amendment No. 40.
Amendment No. 40: Page 6, line 19, leave out ("have power by virtue of this section to transfer") and insert ("on receipt of the notice make arrangements for the transfer of")
This would make it clear when the transfer took place. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Colville of Culross Viscount Colville of Culross moved Amendment No. 40:
[Printed above.]
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Colville of Culross Viscount Colville of Culross moved Amendment No. 41:
Page 6, line 39, at end insert—
("(11) This section does not apply to a charity falling within paragraph (g) of Schedule 2 to the Act of 1960 or a charity which is a company or other body corporate.")
The noble Viscount said: Subject, by this time, to the normal reservations on this point, I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4 [Power for very small charities to spend capital]:
Lord Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon Lord Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon moved Amendment No. 42:
Page 6, line 42, leave out ("£25") and insert ("£100").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment it may be for the convenience of the Committee to consider Amendment No. 46, which clearly hangs with it, and it is possible that some of your Lordships will wish also to consider Amendments Nos. 43 and 47, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, which clearly fall within the same field.
Amendment No. 46: Page 7, line 2, leave out ("£5") and insert ("£10").
Amendment No. 43: Page 6, line 42, leave out ("£25") and insert ("£250").
Amendment No. 47: Page 7, line 2, leave out ("£5") and insert ("£50").
This is an amendment of rather more substance than the drafting amendments which we have recently been considering. It is one to which my noble friend Lord Renton and myself attach some importance. It may be within the recollection of your Lordships that the Small Charities Bill, which, with the Government's help, I was able to carry through another place and which my noble friend Lord Renton introduced into your Lordships' House, dealt specifically and only with the ability of charities to spend their capital. The figures that we inserted in the original Bill were, of course, very much larger than the figures we are talking about today. We have recognised, obviously, that the provisions in this Bill which enable small charities, by agreement, to merge themselves with larger and richer charities make the provisions of the original Small Charities Bill much less important than they were.
Nevertheless, we think that for very small charities the provision that they should be enabled to spend capital, which, in many cases, would mean winding themselves up, is important. We believe that the figures put into the Bill are too small. When this question was debated and when the Small Charities Bill was originally published, there were a great many objections from certain people who said that it was a breach, if not of charitable law at least of the principles of charities, that the intentions of a benefactor should be extinguished; in other words, that while there was still money that could be spent the intentions of the donor should continue to be carried out.
I never felt that this was a very valid principle. Indeed, it was not accepted by the Goodman Committee, which was certainly not short of heavyweight legal opinion. The Goodman Committee recommended that small charities should be able to spend their capital within certain restrictions. The Select Committee of the House of Commons also recommended this; and it was accepted by the Government and by Members of another place when they considered the Small Charities Bill. However, it was clear that the Select Committee of your Lordships' House was considerably influenced by these arguments. They have breached the so-called principle that this should never be allowed, but they have, so to speak, reduced it to nothing by making the figures permitted miniscule.
I suppose that, having accepted that we might sin, they were trying to reduce the sin as much as possible, presumably along the lines of the principle laid down in the case of the housemaid's baby. But it seems to my noble friend and myself—we have considered this very
520
carefully and we have consulted fairly widely—that the figures of £25 capital and £5 income are far too restrictive and will make life very difficult for a number of small charities. We have thought hard what the figures should be raised to. We have concluded that a capital sum of £100 and an income of £10 are about right, offer no serious risk of abuse and will be helpful.
Obviously, I cannot object to the principle of the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Hooson. I would, however, venture to suggest, with respect, that he has put his figures rather high. I hope very much that in the circumstances, since both my noble friend Lady Trumpington and my noble friend Lord Colville made fairly helpful noises to me in winding up on Second Reading, suggesting that they might be prepared to go a little way beyond the original figures in the Bill, my noble friend will be prepared to accept these two amendments. I beg to move.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Renton: In supporting my noble friend Lord Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, I merely wish to say that I am astounded at our moderation.
Lord Hooson: With your Lordships' permission, I should like to speak to my own Amendments, No. 43 and No. 47—and No. 44 as well—while speaking to this particular amendment.
[Amendments Alas. 43 and 47 printed earlier: col. 519.]
Amendment No. 44: Page 6, line 42, leave out from ("less") to ("and") in line 44.
I agree entirely with what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Maude, on his own amendment, but I think that he has been far too moderate in his approach here. It seems to me that the problem tackled by the Bill is a proliferation of defunct or semi-defunct local poverty charities, and it is therefore important to attack the problem effectively. Of course, in this clause we are concerned only with the expenditure of capital. But surely it is necessary, considering the present value of money, to multiply the figures by 10. For example, the value of capital should go up from £25 to £250 and income should go up to £50.
This Bill is specific and fairly narrow in its scope, despite its very general Title. But I feel that it is too timid. I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Maude, that this is a very important amendment he has moved; it goes to the substance of the matter. With his experience, he knows that this Bill has to proceed from this House to another place, where a perhaps much more robust attitude will be taken towards it. It is an important measure, provided we are not too over-cautious. Surely charity law is riddled with over-caution, at great cost to the public and to the original donors. The amount of time, effort and resources wasted in dealing with all the mechanics and laws relating to small charities is often disproportionate. Therefore, we ought to think in terms of the modern value of money. A capital value of £250 and an income of £50 is much nearer the mark; but, if I gave vent to my true feelings in the matter, it is still probably too modest.
I should like to mention briefly my amendment No. 44, which eliminates the exclusion of land from

521
this subsection. Nothing could be more annoying and wasteful than for a small charity to have to hang on to a bit of land—under my amendment, land worth £250, or, under the clause as at present amended, £25. I ask your Lordships: how much land can you buy today for £25 or £250? It is time we took a slightly more realistic view of the value of money today.
Lord Denning: I should like to support all the amendments, but I am in favour of the figures which have been mentioned by my noble friend Lord Hooson.
Lord Airedale: It seems to me that when we are considering a matter of this kind we really ought to ask ourselves: what would the founders of this charity think about what we are here proposing to do to interfere with something which they ordained, probably many years ago? The trustees establishing a charity are very often extremely concerned with two points. One is the good, charitable work that they hope is going to be done. The other very often is preserving, they think for eternity, the memory of some local citizen whom they held in high regard, in whose memory this charity was established. Very often, I believe, it was only the high regard that was had for this person that enabled the trustees to collect the money to establish the trust and found the charity.
Probably they thought, in their wisdom (and who are we to disagree with them?), that rather than erect some elaborate tombstone or memorial it was better to establish a charity and to do good work. What would the founders be likely to think about saying that as soon as the endowment falls to £100 then the time has come when the charity can be terminated and the memory of this person shall no longer live in the minds of people in the locality? An endowment of £100, well invested, will produce £10 a year; and one bears in mind that Parliament has said that £10 at Christmas time is a worthwhile gift to an old-age pensioner.
Although the welfare state looks after a great many of the poor people who until recently had to rely upon charity, I am quite sure there are in various localities many people who are not within the net of the welfare state and to whom a gift of £10 or £10-worth would be very welcome indeed. The kind of example I have in mind is some bed-ridden, elderly, poor person, whose television set has broken down and who can ill-afford to pay the cost of repairs.
In asking ourselves the question, "Would the founders of the charity have agreed to terminating the charity when it ceases to be worth more than £10 a year?", I do not believe we can say with any confidence that the founders must have agreed to the course which we propose. When it comes down to £25, which was the figure the committee decided upon, after much deliberation, I think one can say with much greater confidence that the founders might well have been content that when the endowment had fallen to that level perhaps it was not worth continuing the existence of the charity. I am sorry to disagree with my noble friend Lord Hooson about this, but I hardly think this will be an occasion for newspaper headlines about a tremendous split in the ranks of the Liberal Party.
Baroness Faithfull: I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, in what he has said, for a slightly different reason. Speaking as a social worker, I can say that very often I know that a small amount of money will make a great deal of difference to somebody who is needing something that does not fall within the terms of reference of supplementary benefit or other state benefits. I know it is very difficult sometimes to find just a little money to put right quite a little thing which is nevertheless going to mean a lot to some person who cannot afford it.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: I should like to support everything that the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, and the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, have said. I, too, believe there is a certain sanctity in the wishes of the founders of a charity being respected. Very often there could have been something highly symbolic about their wishes in creating a certain charity. This is something that, to my mind, the benefits of raising the level could not justify. For this reason, and also the reason that if a principle is to be breached then the breach should be kept as small as possible, I am unable to support this amendment.
Lord Brightman: I should like to say a few words on the Select Committee's approach to Clause 4. The committee were very deeply divided at one time as to what was the proper monetary limit to put into the clause. There was a great deal of discussion and a great deal of disagreement. In the end we came to the view—which perhaps on the surface might be thought a little surprising—that we should keep the sum as low as we possibly could. The type of considerations which we had in mind were that as a general rule the problems of trustees of a very small charity would be able to be solved by an amalgamation under Clause 3. Clause 4 is really a last resort where the charity fund is so small that it would be unreasonable to put the trustees to all the expense and trouble of trying to find a suitable transferee charity unless one were close at hand and easily identified. So we thought that we could safely keep the sum specified in Clause 4 down to a low figure.
I should also mention that to avoid overburdening the resources of the Charity Commission—which was always in the forefront of our mind—Clause 4 does not contain any safeguards at all against an erroneous use of the power, save only that unanimity is required among the trustees. There is no provision, such as is found in the other clauses, for public notice; there is no provision for concurrence by the Charity Commissioners in the resolution which is passed. That is by design because the sum upon which we decided in the committee was such a small sum that we thought that it could safely be left to the trustees and that it would be unreasonable to burden the Charity Commissioners.
If the sum in Clause 4 is increased substantially, then a case will arise for requiring publicity, and the concurrence of the Charity Commissioners. So all in all we felt that the best course would be to keep the sum a small one justifiably to exempt the charity trustees from advertising what they intended to do and to exempt the Charity Commissioners from the burden of looking at this very tiny distribution of money.

523
So far as land is concerned, I suggest that it is correct under Clause 4(1)(a) to exclude "land or interest in land". Land is not susceptible to division among beneficiaries or payment out to a single beneficiary. If the trustees held a small piece of land and were going to exercise their power under Clause 4 to distribute the capital, inevitably they would have to sell the land. So it would seem reasonable to us to except land from Clause 4 and let the power apply to the proceeds of sale of that land, which then will be known, and no question of valuation for the purposes of exercising the Clause 4 power will be needed.
I ask the Committee to let the compromise figure reached by the Select Committee stand. This is only a pilot scheme; it is not intended to be more than that. If, at the end of the day, it is found that it works or that it has deficiencies and so forth, then primary legislation can be introduced which will take that into account.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: I should like briefly to make two points. First, there were those on the committee who expressed the view that there should be no Clause 4 at all, that the only way forward should be via the Clause 3 procedure which explains, I think, the nature of the compromise which my noble and learned friend has just been expounding.
The second point is really a small, practical point, but it is worth mentioning. There is an obligation in the 1960 Act on trustees who wind up a charity to tell the Charity Commission. Whether the trustees who wind up the small charities will discharge that obligation any more satisfactorily than all the other obligations they fail to discharge must be very doubtful. If the scope of this clause were too wide, the effect on the register and its continuing inaccuracy could be quite considerable.
7.45 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington: It might be helpful at this stage if I set out briefly the Government's view on this amendment, the case for which has been so persuasively argued by my noble friends Lord Maude and Lord Renton. The Government's support for the Bill promoted in the first instance by my noble friend and by my noble friend Lord Renton is well known to the Committee. The Government appreciated, however, that much of the evidence submitted to the Select Committee did not favour the Bill, and that the Select Committee were not able to commend the Bill as it stood. The Government consider that this amendment is a reasonable one in these circumstances and agree with my noble friends Lord Maude and Lord Renton that the limit could be raised to £100 without seriously threatening the pool of charitable capital.
The administration of a charity with an income worth less than £10 a year may be an unproductive burden. Under the provisions of this Bill as it stands the trustees of charities with endowments worth very little will have to find another charity whose trustees would be prepared to continue the administration of these very small funds.
Your Lordships' Committee will appreciate that brokerage charges are such as to deter trustees from moving out of small holdings in unsuitable stock.
524
Moreover, in the case of small amounts of capital representing permanent endowment, such as those received from the redemption of rent charges, brokerage charges (a minimum of £7) can render worthless such endowments.
We think it should be left to the good sense of the trustees of charities whose endowment is worth £100 or less to consider whether their best advantage lies in spending their capital on the purposes of the charity or seeking amalgamation, given the cost of that amalgamation. It seems desirable also to have an income limit of £10 which is consistent with the value of the endowment. Therefore, we welcome the amendment.
I turn to Amendments Nos. 43 and 47 which have been tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hooson. Your Lordships will appreciate that the higher the figure goes at which charity trustees may expend capital, the more controversial the Bill may appear to be. There is no clear criteria to determine what the limit should be and it is a matter of judgment whether the limit should be as high as £250. The Government are content to leave that judgment to the Committee.
As regards Amendment No. 44, which is also tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, and which relates to land, we do not believe that it would be appropriate that charities with an interest in land should be allowed to use the provisions of this clause. We think that they should continue to be subject to the requirements on the disposal of land in the 1960 Act, to guard against the possibility that land is sold at below its proper price.
Lord Renton: I am sure that your Lordships' Committee is grateful to my noble friend Lady Trumpington for what she has just said. It seems to me that what she has put before your Lordships' Committee is the kind of wisdom which we have learned to accept from Home Office Ministers through the ages. But I should just like to make the comment that those who are opposed to the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon have produced arguments which are really arguments against having Clause 4 at all. If we are to have Clause 4, I suggest that it should be realistic. To have the figure of £5 as the gross income included in it is quite absurd. The sum of £5 for one hour's work is now the rate for many semi-skilled workers, and we are referring here to an annual income. It is quite ludicrous. I appreciate what my noble friend has said about going too high and what was said by the noble and learned Lords on the Cross Benches about the administrative burden that might be placed on the Charity Commission if we went too high. But using what my noble friend Lady Trumpington has called "our judgment", I should have thought that our best judgment is to accept the two amendments moved by my noble friend.
Viscount Colville of Culross: As the sponsor of this Bill, I had hoped that I would be allowed to have a few words, but I have waited until I have heard the rest of the debate. There is perhaps not a great deal to be said, except for an explanation as to why it is that I am unpersuaded by those who wish to increase these limits. I am glad that I have at least one friend on these Benches.

525
I started off as a member of the Select Committee with no views at all upon this subject. I knew the history of the legislation in both Houses and I knew that my noble friend's Bill had passed through another place at least once, and I rather think twice. But there then started to develop the whole dynamic process of the Select Committee.
We began to consider the other provisions which now appear in Clauses 2 and 3, and at the same time it became apparent that there is in the country—and there is also some in the Select Committee—virulent and absolutely sincere opposition to the dissipation of the capital of charities, and that this would be a major sticking point for a large number of people who otherwise would be extremely interested in getting this legislation through Parliament.
As one listened to the witnesses and the reasons they gave, one could not but respect the wisdom and the sincerity which they brought to bear upon the subject. I am bound to say that it had an effect upon me. I thought to myself that it might be all right to have, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, has said, a small trial exercise to see what would happen. The evidence clearly showed that there are some extremely tiny charities and, although £5 may be a very small amount, there are some charities where the annual income is about 75p or even 50p and where, by this time, the capital value is tiny as well because of the erosions that took place when the capital was invested in undated gilts during the period before the Trustee Act 1961 was passed.
Therefore, I find myself in a position where I am absolutely bound to agree with all the other members of the Select Committee that we should not go above these figures and, so far as I am concerned, I am afraid that I shall have to ask the Committee to express an opinion on the matter because I could not accept any of these amendments.
Lord Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon: My noble friend Lord Colville of Culross has been unpersuaded by the arguments that we have adduced. I am afraid that I remain unpersuaded by the arguments which he and other noble Lords have adduced because, as my noble friend Lord Renton said, virtually all the arguments have been against the principle of Clause 4 as such. I really find the Select Committee's conclusions very strange.
As to the principle of Clause 4, as I said, this has been approved by the Goodman Committee, by the Commons Select Committee, by the Government and by the Members of another place, and, as we have heard from my noble friend Lady Trumpington, is still approved by the Government today. That really is a pretty formidable set of sponsors for the idea that the principle of Clause 4 is sound.
The Select Committee clearly did not believe that the principle was sound and they were very unwilling to go any distance at all with it. So they rather hesitatingly dipped one toe in the water and said "All right, we shall have this principle accepted but we shall make a nonsense of it by making the figure very low". The noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, said that £5 a year and £25 were compromise figures. My goodness, what sort of a compromise is a figure of £5
526
a year as the annual income of a charity? It was obvious that they were as anxious as possible to ensure that this principle was never applied at all.
In view of the weight of the argument that there has been in previous years in favour of making this change, I do not believe that simply to leave this at this point would be satisfactory. I do not think that this is the right hour in the Committee to have a Division, but I must say that my noble friend and I are not prepared to drop this matter. We shall return to it at the Report stage and if we cannot secure the approval of my noble friend Lord Colville, and if we cannot reach some sort of compromise in the meantime, we shall feel bound to ask for the opinion of the House. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Airedale: Before the noble Lord sits down, as a member of the Select Committee I do not think he has been quite fair to the Committee. We were confronted with a great deal of evidence from people who we regarded very highly and who were very expert, who were extremely anxious that the endowment figure should be very low indeed. I think that the report of the Committee only reflects the Committee's decision, based upon serious evidence given to us by a great many people whose wisdom and knowledge we respected very highly indeed.
Lord Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon: Yes, but with respect perhaps I may point out to the noble Lord that views on the other side were expressed with a great deal of force to the Goodman Committee and to the Select Committee of another place. Moreover, as I have read the evidence, there were a number of bodies, as well as individuals, in favour of keeping the principles of the Small Charities Bill, and they made these points to the Select Committee. The evidence against was not overwhelming.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: Perhaps I may intervene and remind the noble Lord that he himself took the point earlier on that the whole position has changed since the days of Goodman because of Clause 3. Goodman was looking at an entirely different situation.
Lord Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 43 and 44 not moved.]
Viscount Colville of Culross Viscount Colville of Culross moved Amendment No. 45:
Page 7, line 1, leave out ("last").
The noble Viscount said: This is a drafting amendment to make Clauses 3 and 4 consistent. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 46, 47 and 48 not moved.]
Viscount Colville of Culross Viscount Colville of Culross moved Amendment No. 49:
Page 7, line 22, at end insert—
("(5) This section does not apply to a charity falling within paragraph (g) of Schedule 2 to the Act of 1960.").
The noble Viscount said: This is the exempt charities point in Clause 4. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 5 [Financial limits for classification of certain small charities]:
8 p.m.
Viscount Colville of Culross Viscount Colville of Culross moved Amendment No. 50:
Page 7, line 25, leave out from beginning to ("by") in line 27.
The noble Viscount said: I am not sure about this amendment. If anybody objects to the amendment I shall be happy to withdraw it. It takes away the signpost, as it were, which is to guide the Secretary of State in the exercise of his powers in raising the financial limits under Clause 3 of the Bill. It may well be that members of the Committee would prefer to see the signpost left. If so, I should be happy to withdraw the amendment, but for the moment I beg to move.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: I should prefer to see this signpost remain. It gives some indication of the reasons why these powers should be used, and I hope that the Committee will accept the noble Viscount's offer.
Viscount Colville of Culross: I see no opposition. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Colville of Culross Viscount Colville of Culross moved Amendment No. 51:
Page 7, line 31, at end insert ("and").
The noble Viscount said: Amendments Nos. 51 and 53 go together.
Amendment No. 53: Page 7, line 32, at end insert ("or either of those sums").
What is being done is to provide that the Secretary of State's powers to increase the financial limits in Section 18(5) of the 1960 Act and in Clause 3(2) of this Bill shall be exercisable by statutory instrument. The point is that he can do it either conjointly or separately, and this amendment makes that clear. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hooson Lord Hooson moved Amendment No. 52:
Page 7, line 32, leave out ("section") and insert ("sections 2(1) and").
The noble Lord said: There is a typographical error in the printing here which emanated, I regret to say, from me. I meant to refer to section 4(1) and not to section 2(1). The noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, referring to the financial limits in Clause 4(1), suggested that they might be changed later, after an experimental period, by primary legislation. Bearing in mind the difficulty of obtaining primary legislation on a narrow subject like that, I thought it proper that the Secretary of State should have the same right to adjust the figures there as he has in relation to Section 3(2), and that is why I put down this
528
amendment. With your Lordships' permission, if one can read 4(1) for 2(1), I beg to move the amendment.
Viscount Colville of Culross: I am afraid that I was wholly misled by the mistake. I thought this was consequential upon an earlier amendment that the noble Lord had put down. Now that I understand what he is saying, I am afraid there is no way in which this amendment can live with Clause 5(2). It sets different criteria and is hopelessly inconsistent. For that reason alone I hope he will not persevere with it.
There is another point, and it is a point of substance. It is plain that we are going to come back to the whole question of limits, and I am bound to say that there is an alternative route to the setting of a figure in the Bill. One could of course remove (if I may put it in shorthand) the inflation-linked criteria for increasing the amount of money by order under Clause 4 and use the same formula that applies to Clause 3 and Section 18(5) of the other Act. That is what the noble Lord is suggesting; but it would be an amendment of substance which perhaps ought to be considered as an alternative to some of the other increases in absolute terms which have been discussed in the course of the afternoon.
As we are inevitably going to come back to this at another stage, perhaps it might be better if the noble Lord were to leave it for this evening, bearing in mind that it can be stirred into the general melee next time.
Lord Hooson: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Colville of Culross Viscount Colville of Culross moved Amendment No. 53:
[Printed above.]
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
(Amendment No. 54 not moved.)
Clause 6 [Interpretation.]:
Viscount Colville of Culross Viscount Colville of Culross moved Amendment No. 55:
Page 8, line 3, leave out ("either—
(i)")
The noble Viscount said: I am afraid that this looks the most awful muddle, but as a matter of fact it is an attempt to clear up what is a rather difficult technical problem, which is the definition of a "local charity for the relief of poverty". The Bill as it stands, in Clause 6(1)(b)(i), refers to a charity's area of benefit falling within
"a single area of local government greater than a parish".
But these expressions are not clear. Parishes are not universal in England and Wales. They do not happen in urban areas, and there are not any anymore in Wales. A single area of local government could be a district or a county.
It is desired, however, that as long as the area of benefit of a charity falls within a county or within Greater London it should be covered by this Bill. This series of amendments will make it clear that if the

529
charity's area of benefit is, or falls within, the area of no more than five adjoining parishes, or a county, or Greater London, it will be covered by the definition.
Then Clause 6(1)(b)(ii) refers to a charity
"established (wholly or mainly) for the benefit of one or more parishes".
This could be construed as placing no limit at all on the area of benefit of a charity short of nationwide, so that that would be a failure properly to define "local charity for the relief of poverty". It might include a charity which is in no sense local.
This series of amendments therefore seeks to make it clear that the area of benefit for the charity, when that charity was originally established, was or fell wholly within the area of one or more parishes specified in the trusts. It is a complicated matter. It caused a great deal of difficulty in the Select Committee. The draftsman has helped me in applying his mind to it, and I hope that we now have it right. I beg to move Amendment No. 55.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Colville of Culross Viscount Colville of Culross moved Amendment No. 56:
Page 8, line 7, after ("Wales") insert ("(in this section referred to as "the area of benefit")").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Colville of Culross Viscount Colville of Culross moved Amendment No. 57:
Page 8, line 7, leave out from second ("and") to end of line 12 and insert—

("(i) the area of benefit is, or falls wholly within, the area of not more than five adjoining parishes or of one county or of Greater London, or

(ii) the area that would have been the area of benefit when the charity was originally established was, or fell wholly within, the area of one or more parishes specified in the trusts.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Colville of Culross Viscount Colville of Culross moved Amendment No. 58:
Page 8, line 13, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
("(2) In this Act. "appropriate local authority", in relation to a local charity for the relief of poverty, means any local authority for an area which is the area of benefit or within which the whole or any part of the area of benefit falls, being the council of a non-metropolitan county, metropolitan district or London borough or the Common Council of the City of London.")
The noble Viscount said: As the Bill stands at the moment the local authority that was going to be consulted about questions of charities for the relief of poverty was to be dealt with by means of subsequent legislation. What has happened since is that there have been discussions with the local authority associations and, as I think was always intended by the Select Committee, it has been agreed that the appropriate local authority is likely to be the one with the social services functions because it would be they who would be the most interested in other sources of money for the relief of poverty.
Therefore, in country areas it will be the county. That will include Wales. Although it is appreciated that some of the counties in Wales are very large, nevertheless the advice is that it still ought to be the
530
social services authority in Wales; and in metropolitan counties it will be the district. That now goes into the Bill; and in London it will be the London borough or, in the city, the Common Council of the City. That clears it up and puts it into primary legislation. I hope that noble Lords will think that this is the right solution, and I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Colville of Culross Viscount Colville of Culross moved Amendment No. 59:
Page 8, line 20, leave out paragraph (c).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Denning Lord Denning moved Amendment No. 60:
Page 8, line 23, at end insert—
("( ) "charity trustees" has the meaning in section 46 of the Charities Act 1960 (namely, the person having the general control and management of administration of the charity) and, in addition, in any case when it appears to the appropriate local authority that the trust is dormant or inactive, such additional persons as appear to the appropriate local authority to be suitable to act as trustees;")
The noble and learned Lord said: This is an attempt to deal with one of the real difficulties in enforcing this Bill. The Select Committee drew attention to dormant and inactive trusts. In paragraph 49 the committee said:
"Of the 144,000 registered charities … only about 10,000 render accounts to the Commissioners".
The rest are dormant or obsolescent. About the others the committee gave a particular example of the position in Humberside. An investigation carried out between 1978 and 1979 found 120 inactive charities with balances of accumulated income of £107,000. That shows that a great many charities do not operate, the trustees have died, and no new ones have been appointed, or the present trustees do nothing and are completely inactive, they do not register accounts or anything of that kind.
What is the machinery in the Bill to persuade those people to do their duty? As far as I can see it is the complicated machinery whereby a member of the public, if you please, under Clause 1 has to know about the charity, has to put it before the Charity Commissioners, who in turn have to hold an investigation and inquiry. Then they may make a scheme and in that remove the trustees or appoint new ones. It is a long, complicated machinery for dealing with this enormous problem of dormant and inactive trusts.
My amendment is intended to provide an easy, simple solution. When the appropriate local authority, which has a social services committee, finds that no accounts have been rendered and nothing has been done by the trustees, what are they to do? Are they to go to the commissioners for an inquiry? Why not? Let them have the power to appoint a banker or solicitor, or both, as trustees of that small local charity. They are sure to appoint good trustees, such as a banker or solicitor, who would do the work voluntarily. In every small village one can find bankers or solicitors ready to work as trustees and look after the affairs to see that they are in order.
My amendment, instead of having to go through the long complicated machinery that I have mentioned, being initiated by a member of the public, would allow

531
the appropriate local authority, after collecting all the details, to bring a trust back to life again. It would be said, "Let us appoint our friend so-and-so, a banker, or our friend so-and-so, a solicitor, who will see that the thing is kept in order". That is the objective of my amendment. I do not know whether it is acceptable, but I think that thought should be given to the matter of how to bring dormant and inactive trusts back to life and keep them going.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Brightman: I hope that your Lordships will not think that the machinery, if it can be called that, set up by Clause 1 is either long or complicated; if it is, then the Bill is failing in its purpose. It is intended to be very simple and to enable a member of the public, probably a resident in the locality, to bring the matter to the attention of the Charity Commissioners, so that they can take the simple action open to them.
The effect of the proposed amendment causes me some misgivings. It would have the effect of giving to a local authority power to appoint additional trustees if the local authority thinks that the trust is dormant or inactive.
There are possibly two objections to dealing with the matter in that way. First, there is a possible political objection. Ought county councils, which are primarily political bodies, to be given power, first, to decide whether the local charity is dormant or inactive, and, secondly, to decide who should be the trustees of that charity if the local authority considers that it is not doing its job?
There was strong evidence before the Select Committee that county councils are not appropriate bodies to be given a substantial say over local charities, because of their political standing. That was spelt out in paragraph 53 of the report.
There is a possible second objection to dealing with the matter in the way proposed. There will inevitably be a confusion of responsibility between the local authority and the Charity Commissioners. If the charity is inactive or dormant, the probability is that it has defaulted in the filing of accounts as required by the 1960 Act and by the Bill. If that is so, the Charity Commissioners are likely to be activated by an interested local resident, so that they will have powers, under Section 18, to appoint additional trustees or new trustees. Are we to have two concurrent powers of appointing new trustees running side by side, one power in the local authority and the other in the Charity Commissioners? I suggest that that concurrency of powers is not practical or desirable.
I do not suggest that the Bill is perfect. It is difficult to formulate a Bill which will compel all trustees to be active and efficient in the discharge of their office. We on the committee thought that the only practical way of dealing with the matter was that which we set out in Clause 1. I suggest that this amendment is not really a practical way of meeting the problem, that it will cause confusion, and that it is better to leave the Bill in its present form.
Lord Hooson: When two Titans disagree it poses great difficulties for your Lordships' Committee. But
532
having heard the two contributions we have just listened to, I find myself attracted by the argument of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, for this reason. If we have so many inactive and dormant charities in the country, what process will get them reactivated? The suggestion made by the noble and learned Lord is rather more robust in its approach and I favour the appropriate local authority having this right. Personally, I should have preferred the local authority to have been the district council because it is so much closer to the people, but it does not have a social services department. I suppose technical problems might arise, but I feel that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, is on the right track. I am not sure that his amendment has been as carefully considered as he might have liked to consider it in setting down the proper machinery to achieve his objective.
Baroness Faithfull: I had intended to speak to the Question, That Clause 7 stand part, but, in the light of this amendment and of what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, has said, perhaps I may speak now. My mind was running in the same direction as that of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, but arrived at a different solution. I was going to "not move" an amendment that asked Her Majesty's Government whether they could consider monitoring this Act over a period of time. We have had the Nathan Report, we have had the Select Committee of the Commons, we have had the Goodman Report—and, following all those three reports, in some cases Acts were passed but were not implemented or certain sections of them were not implemented. I was going to draw the attention of the Committee to that and to suggest that Her Majesty's Government might consider monitoring this Bill by asking, for instance, a polytechnic or a university such as Brunel University, which is running a course for trustees at the moment, to monitor this Act when it is passed, over a period of, say, five years. I did not put down an amendment because I thought it would be something that the Government just might consider.
Lord Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon: Briefly, I must say that I thought that the first argument adduced by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, was absolutely conclusive against this amendment. I think it would be quite disastrous that a local authority which was run on party political lines and controlled by a political majority should have the powers that are suggested in this amendment. I can see a great deal of controversy and resentment rising out of it if this amendment were to go through.
Viscount Colville of Culross: I wish that I could find myself in a greater area of agreement with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, than has happened on the Committee stage of this Bill. But I, too, have to join in objection to what he is proposing. I do not want to repeat what has been said before but, on the political point, if Members of the Committe would like to look at paragraph 53 of the Select Committee's report, which gives the references to the evidence in the bigger Blue Book, I think they will see that there is a point of great substance in what has just been said

533
and has been endorsed by my noble friend Lord Maude.
The second matter that arises directly out of that is that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, said that he thought that what the local authority would do would be to appoint the friendly neighbourhood banker or accountant. But, as a matter of fact, I do not think that they would. I think that there are some local authorities who would appoint members of the Finance Committee; and you might get a very different result indeed. I am not putting this on any party political lines. It could happen in any party which was running a local authority. I make no difference whatever between the parties. Then you would get politicisation.
The other thing is this. Granted—and it is indeed granted—that one wishes to do something about charities which are defunct, dormant and completely inactive, how is the local authority going to be in a better position than anybody else to find out about it? The Select Committee tried to see if the banks were prepared to assist with the provision of any information about funds that they might hold for charities either nationally or on an individual basis. They said that they certainly could not assist on that; that it was a private matter between themselves and their clients. The same would apply to solicitors or accountants who were holding money for a charity which was defunct. Quite frankly, a local authority is in no better position than anybody else to get at the truth about these matters or to root out the funds which ought to be used.
I absolutely agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, that something ought to be done about this, but I am afraid that I do not think that this is the way to do it. I really suggest that if anybody does obtain information—and this would include a local authority, because we have already discussed the fact that they are persons who can use Clause 1—they can go to the Charity Commissioners and get the new trustees appointed and get the money back into action and working again. I would suggest to the committee that the arguments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, covered the field so thoroughly that we ought to be content to leave the Bill as it is without adding a complication which I believe could be dangerous.
Lord Denning: I would deplore the thought that politics would come into the appointment of any trustees of a little charity but, on the other hand, if there was evidence before the Select Committee that it does, I should regret it but it would be a point against my amendment: I agree as to that. But I do hope that something can be done to bring these dormant and inactive charities to life. The one method which appeared—and that is why I am sorry that my first amendment was not taken up—was that if the appropriate local authority is the body to get the accounts and is the body to publish the information, then, for goodness' sake, let it (when the thing is dormant or inactive) put the matter before the Commissioners and get the Commissioners to make the scheme—and I hope that it will not be long and complicated—and remedy all these cases.
I hope that the discussion will have been of this
534
value: that it will attract some notice to the question so that in all further publicity which is given to the matter, the attention of the appropriate local authority can be drawn to the importance of dealing with dormant and inactive charities so as to remedy the position. Also I should like very much, as the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, has said, for the position to be monitored over the ensuing five years so that we can see whether it really works. On that, I would withdraw the proposed amendment.
Baroness Trumpington: Before the noble and learned Lord sits down, I wonder whether I may reply to my noble friend Lady Faithfull and to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, as to the remarks about monitoring. I would say that the Government will look carefully at the suggestion by both speakers that the way that this Bill works in practice should be monitored. As my noble friend is aware, the commissioners, who report to Parliament annually, will themselves be a valuable source of information on how the Bill works out. I hope that that is useful to both my noble friend and the noble and learned Lord.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 61 not moved.]
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clause7 [Citation, etc.]:
Viscount Colville of Culross Viscount Colville of Culross moved Amendment No. 62:
Page 8, line 40, at end insert ("and different days may be appointed for different provisions and for different purposes.").
The noble Viscount said: If this Bill should ever get on to the statute book, it would be hoped that a great deal of it would come into force immediately. There are, however, provisions for making regulations under Clause 1 and it could therefore be that a slight delay would ensue. Therefore, different commencement dates should be provided for in the way that this amendment does. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Section 3]:
Viscount Colville of Culross Viscount Colville of Culross moved Amendments Nos. 63, 64 and 65:
Amendment No. 63: Page 10, line 10, leave out ("last preceding financial year") and insert ("preceding accounting period").
Amendment No. 64: [Printed earlier: col. 515.]
Amendment No. 65: [Printed earlier: col. 515.]
The noble Viscount said: I wonder whether at this time of the evening I may move these three amendments en bloc. Amendment No. 63 is consequential upon No. 45 and Nos. 64 and 65 are consequential upon Nos. 30 and 32 to which the Committee has already agreed. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining schedule agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with the amendments.

Food Imitations (Safety) Regulations 1985
8.31 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I beg to move that the draft Food Imitations (Safety) Regulations 1985, laid before the House on 11th December 1984, to be made under the Consumer Safety Act 1978, be approved. I should just point out that the Order Paper refers to "Food Limitations". We are in fact here referring to "Food Imitations".
The proposed regulations replace and extend the Scented Erasers (Safety) Order 1984 (S.I. 1984 No. 83) made on 30th January 1984. They revise the size criteria, introduce severance test procedures, cover appearance and taste resemblance, in addition to scent, and extend to certain other products.
The definition of "safe" contained in Section 9 of the Consumer Safety Act 1978 is,
"such as to prevent or adequately to reduce any risk of personal injury".
This is what has to be kept in mind when considering the need for regulations made under the Act.
There is a need to remove from supply certain products which, by this definition, cannot be considered safe, particularly to young children because, by wilfully and unnecessarily imitating food they increase the risk of choking presented by all small objects. These regulations need cause no concern to suppliers of toys, novelties and stationery items if the goods they market do not imitate food.
One is bound to ask: why should such things look, taste or smell like food, anyway? What is the point of making a pencil-sharpener look like a strawberry, or a rubber shaped like a typewriter smell of bananas? Any ordinary adult finding such things in the shops will react with surprise. But if he or she is the parent of small children, that surprise is likely to turn into concern and possibly annoyance. Parents are well aware of the habit that all small children have of putting things in their mouths. But they have every right to be concerned when small objects appear in the shops that positively invite children to pop them into their mouths.
Of course, consumers constantly demand novelty and suppliers rightly exercise ingenuity and imagination in responding to that demand. But suppliers must be responsible, and the unfortunate fact is that some suppliers are not thoughtful or careful enough for the public to be protected without regulations of this kind. For this reason responsible manufacturers and traders look to Parliament for guidance on particular aspects of safety. These regulations, therefore, relate to the hazard and unnecessary temptation that small objects present to a specially vulnerable group; children under three years of age.
During last year the Department of Trade and Industry carried out extensive consultations on the scope and content of these regulations. In all 104 bodies were consulted. This figure included 30 trade associations and 16 individual firms. Half of the 104 responded; two had no comment, 39 were generally in favour, and 11 opposed the concept. Some, if not quite
536
all, of the concerns of the trade associations who were consulted have been met by subsequent amendments to the regulations. All comments received have been fully considered in determining the form and content of the draft regulations.
In taking action now, Parliament will do two main things: first, keep known food imitation products (mainly scented erasers) off the market and thereby avoid the potential increase in numbers of accidents associated with them; and, secondly, pre-empt the introduction of other products which might imitate food.
In making permanent regulations it is logical to cover not only scented erasers, but also other similar products which are equally dangerous, and to include other means of food imitation. In order to cause the minimum restriction on trade, however, the product coverage has been confined to those items known to exist, or which can reasonably be surmised could exist, in food imitation form, whose utility does not require them to bear any resemblance to food and to which children have ready access.
A targeted approach has been adopted so that the trade should know with certainty what would and would not be permissible. The target is not the traditional toys of long standing, but the new and more dangerous products which have come on to the market in recent years, and almost all from the Far East.
The regulations need to contain three simple tests, all related to the size of objects. The main test is the truncated cylinder. But there is also a potential hazard from larger objects from which small children can detach smaller pieces by biting or pulling. So two severance tests are necessary to simulate the abuse things are likely to receive in the hands and mouths of small children.
The Government, in a White Paper (Cmnd. 9302), published proposals last July to strengthen the legislation on the safety of goods. It is proposed that a general duty be placed on all suppliers to ensure that their goods are safe in accordance with sound modern standards of safety.
Additionally, powers are proposed to enable enforcement officers to seize or freeze and thus prevent the distribution of suspected dangerous goods and to allow Customs and Excise to notify the importation of specific goods. All these measures will have the effect of diminishing the need for safety regulations, prohibition orders and notices of the kind we are considering tonight.
Finally, my Lords, it is pertinent to remark that there is legislation banning small objects that imitate food in a number of countries—France, Austria, West Germany. Switzerland, Sweden, the Republic of Ireland, Greece and Australia—and Belgium, Denmark, the Netherlands and a number of other countries are proposing action shortly.
The draft regulations before the House will promote greater safety, and, accordingly, I ask your Lordships to approve them. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 11th December 1984 be approved. [5th Report from the Joint Committee.]—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we must be grateful to the noble Lord for introducing what is, of course, a serious matter as seriously and responsibly as he did. We on this side of the House support the regulations. We believe that although it might be thought that this is an extension of the "Nanny state", which none of us would wish for its own sake, the dangers here which are to be avoided by the regulations outweigh the dangers of increased regulation.
Having said that, I must also say that this is one of the most delightful little sets of regulations I have seen for a long time. There are very few that actually contain engineering drawings of test jaws or truncated cylinders. There are very few regulations which actually contain definitions of "food", "severable parts", "toys" or "marbles". I think the English language is in no way diminished by the kind of definitions which we see included in the regulations. We support the Motion.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I should like just to thank the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, for his support for the regulations.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Employee Involvement
8.38 p.m.
Lord Rochester Lord Rochester rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what conclusions they have reached in monitoring the action reported to have been taken by companies in introducing, maintaining and developing employee involvement in accordance with Section 1 of the Employment Act 1982.
The noble Lord, said: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name and in doing so I shall try to cover as quickly as possible what is necessarily, I am afraid, rather a lot of ground. Section 1 of the Employment Act 1982 is based on an amendment to the Bill which I was privileged to move on behalf of my noble friends. Its primary aim was to improve this country's industrial relations and performance by increasing the extent to which employees participate in the activities of the companies in which they work.
The amendment was at first resisted by the Government, but after it had been agreed to by the House the Government accepted it in principle and, following consultation within industry and discussion with me, a slightly modified version was introduced by the Government and now forms Section 1 of the Act.
The section makes it a statutory requirement that in every directors' report of a United Kingdom company relating to financial years beginning on or after the 1st January 1983, where the number of employees exceeds 250, a statement is included describing the action taken during the year to introduce, maintain or develop arrangements aimed at,

"(i) providing employees systematically with information on matters of concern to them as employees,

(ii) consulting employees or their representatives on a regular basis so that the views of employees can be taken into account in making decisions which are likely to affect their interests,

538

(iii) encouraging the involvement of employees in the company's performance through an employees' share scheme or by some other means,

(iv) achieving a common awareness on the part of all employees of the financial and economic factors affecting the performance of the company".

On 21st May last, in reply to a parliamentary Question, the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, said that Ministers would be monitoring all company annual reports to see how employee involvement was being pursued.
My purpose in asking this Question is two-fold: first, to establish broadly how companies actually reported on the subject during the year 1984 and what conclusions the Government have drawn from their reports; and, secondly—and much more important—I should like to ask what the Government think should be done next and, in so doing, to canvass a few possible courses of action.
I should make it plain from the start that I am not seeking to make any great political capital out of this discussion; the matter is far too important for that. Indeed, apart from the Liberal and Social Democratic parties, there are a great many individuals and organisations with a stake in the outcome. In another place, the honourable Member for Wyre Forest, Mr. Esmond Bulmer, made an unsuccessful attempt shortly before my amendment to the Employment Bill was moved to introduce somewhat similar legislation through a Private Member's Bill.
The Industrial Society, the Institute of Personnel Management and the Industrial Participation Association—and from now on I shall call the last two the IPM and IPA—have all demonstrated their practical support for the aims of the section. Indeed, it seems to me that the best hope of making further progress in this field is to identify as much common ground as possible on which we can move forward together.
An analysis by the IPM of 165 annual reports issued during the first six months of 1984 contained a number of interesting features. In more than half the reports—and this applied also to just those medium-sized companies employing betwen 1,000 and 10,000 people which Section 1 was particularly designed to activate—either there was reference in the relevant statements to only one or two of the four elements of employee involvement specified in the section, or there was only a very short general statement dealing with the matter.
In one large company employing more than 10,000 people and in 10 smaller ones, there was no statement at all and from their survey the institute drew the conclusion that there was clearly scope for improvement in reporting. In another analysis by the organisation known as Industrial Relations Services, of 200 statements made by companies, almost all of them large ones, it appears that the majority do not have, or if they do they failed to mention its existence, any formal consultative machinery. Over half did not issue or omitted to mention reports to employees on the company's financial results. Industrial Relations Services drew two possible conclusions: either that companies were not concerned to draw up such statements, or that voluntary arrangements are not as widespread or of as substantial a nature as sections of industry have suggested.
I do not for a moment suggest that statements of this kind provide an accurate account of what is actually happening. Some may overstate and others underplay the true position. Indeed, in a way, this may be all to the good, if it means that awkward questions are then asked, on the one hand by employees who cannot recognise the company painted in colours that are too glowing as the one for which they work; and, on the other, by shareholders anxious to know why their company is apparently so inactive in this field. In all fairness, I should add that it is plain from many of the statements made, by no means all of them coming from large companies, that much positive action is being taken, and it is, of course, action that is at the heart of the philosophy underlying Section 1.
On this point, it is worthy of mention that both the Industrial Society and the IPA have already made awards affording positive recognition to organisations which have made notable progress in establishing genuine employee involvement. The IPM have, in turn, written to the 91 organisations which came within the substandard categories of their survey in the hope of stimulating them to do better in 1985.
The only specific question that I have to ask the Minister concerning the statements so far published is: what, if anything, do the Government propose to do about them? Do they think of offering any kind of general commendation where that may appear appropriate or, on the other hand, reproof where the response to the requirements of the section has evidently been inadequate, perfunctory or, in some cases, non-existent? So much for last year's report.
The question that really matters is: where do we go from here and, more particularly, what follow-up action do the Government have in mind? On this point, I should like first to refer to, and warmly to commend, the document entitled Employee Involvement and Participation: Principles and Standards of Practice, with its accompanying action guide which was drawn up jointly by the IPA and the IPM and first published in October 1983. This document was formally approved by the governing bodies of both organisations which, in the case of the IPM, included a leading employee relations practitioner, and in the case of the IPA senior management and, significantly in my view, trade union representatives.
Both organisations affirmed their belief that the document provided the most appropriate and practical approach to the development of participation in this country and one which was likely to be supported by a large section of both employers and employees. They also felt that it could form the basis for a formal code of practice, if the Government eventually decided to publish one.
The very first principle put forward in the document in relation to its general application is:
"Participation is relevant to all organisations in which people are employed and at all levels within them. It applies equally to commercial, service and financial institutions, manufacturing and distribution industries and public services such as education, health and local and central government, irrespective of their form of ownerships or constitution".
I shall come back to that principle shortly, but first I want to ask the Minister whether the Government
540
propose, after consultation with interested parties, to place their own imprimatur, so to speak, on the IPA-IPM code or to publish their own code, as they have in the case of, for example, closed shop arrangements and picketing.
I can see points for and against their taking that course, but if the Government's view is that on balance it is better at this stage that they should not do so, then I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, whether he would agree to pass on to his right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Employment my strongly held view, for what that is worth, that after this first year of operation of Section 1 the time is ripe for the Government to take further action. Having first sought the widest possible support for so doing, they should really go to town in seizing every opportunity—they have taken one or two already, as the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment reminded me when he was kind enough to let me see him last week—to impress on companies the need to adhere to the principles and practices advocated in the IPA-IPM code, and particularly to the Action Guide with its check list of questions management should ask themselves.
I hope also that in acting in this way the Government will draw special attention to the section of the code which stresses that successful participation takes time to develop because it depends so much on attitudes, and that changes in attitude and the establishment of mutual trust will develop only through the experience of working together.
Section 1 was of course deliberately framed as a continuing requirement and there is therefore need for companies to have not only clearly defined short-term objectives but a long-term programme for the development of employee involvement and means by which progress in carrying it out can be measured. I trust that the Government will stress, too, the desirability of seeing either that employees all receive a copy of their company's annual report or one prepared specially for them, including particularly the information about employee involvement contained in the report issued to shareholders. It is surely anomalous that statements on this subject now have to be made to shareholders but there is no corresponding obligation to give such information to those who actually work for the company concerned. So I should be grateful if the Minister when he replies would say what the Government's view is on this point.
Another principle to which prominence is rightly given in the IPA-IPM code concerns the involvement of trade unions. I entirely support the view there expressed that, where trade unions are recognised, it is important that the co-operation and support of union representatives should be sought in developing participation arrangements and procedures. In that connection, from personal experience I would recommend joint training of managers and other employees especially in seeking to achieve the fourth, and in my view the most important, element of involvement included in Section 1; namely, a common awareness on the part of all employees of the financial and economic factors affecting the company's performance. Just how urgent is the need for that common awareness in the public sector has been amply demonstrated in recent years in the mines,

541
on the railways, in the docks and indeed in the public services generally. The work that the Industrial Society in particular is doing to help in this area is therefore very much to be welcomed.
That brings me back to a point which I first stressed at Third Reading of the Employment Bill in 1982. It was later taken up in another place by the honourable Member for Kidderminster when, in supporting New Clause 1 as it then was, he said, at column 768 of the Official Report of 25th October 1982:
"I am sure that in due course the Minister will wish to address himself to a glaring omission in the Bill's approach—the exclusion of the public sector. There is a greater problem in the public sector in terms of 'us and them' than in the majority of private companies".
The exclusion of the public sector was of course inevitable at that time because Section 1 had to be introduced through the vehicle of the Companies Act. But what is going to be done about it now?
I am on record as having said on a number of occasions that throughout industry and in the public services it should next be made a statutory requirement that in all organisations employing more than a certain number of people there should be consultative bodies of some kind. I must ask the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, to give us the Government's view on this matter. If in their attitude they are not supportive, I fear they may later come to regret it. Apart from the pressures coming from Europe for legislation in this field that would impose on this country much heavier obligations in the form of the Vredeling and Fifth Directives, there are the pressures that are unremittingly increasing within our own society. Can it be right that it is only when people are at work that they may still be denied consultation or representation when major decisions affecting their lives are made?
There are many other matters relevant to employee participation that I barely have time now to mention. I have in mind things like the Co-operative Enterprises, for which my noble friend Lord Grimond has constantly called so cogently, the development of policies designed to provide as far and as fast as possible similar terms and conditions of employment for all employees, and the benefits that would accrue to companies from involving employees much more than is often now the case in helping to determine the structure and the content of their jobs.
In conclusion, I must reaffirm my belief that real participation will not flourish if premature attempts are made to implant it from above. It will prosper only through organic growth which starts at the bottom and works upward. In the end progress will, in my view, depend on the extent to which people generally are prepared to learn from the experience of the best practitioners, and on how they can be brought to believe that it is in their own interests to act in accordance not merely with the letter of Section 1 but with its underlying spirit and philosophy.
8.57 p.m.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, I did not put my name down to speak but I have already consulted the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, and he has graciously said that he does not mind my speaking for a couple of minutes before he does. I did not want to let this occasion pass without giving my support to the Question asked by
542
my noble friend Lord Rochester. The truth of the matter is that I have always had a soft spot for this initiative of my noble friend, and I admired the way and the persistence with which he went about gaining consent to it, finally achieving its insertion as Section 1 of the Employment Act 1982. I think it is an important achievement.
The Government, after years of dragging their feet on the question of wider share ownership, have recently been converted to spreading capital ownership. One may legitimately wonder how far their flotation of nationalised companies will in the long run achieve that wider spread. One fears that a great many of the shares floated in this way will eventually end up back with the institutions. On the other hand, the modest proposal embodied here, particularly in Section 1(3), for encouraging the involvement of employees in the company's performance through an employees share scheme or by some other means, brings the whole question right to the heart of existing companies and how employees are to be involved with them. I am not saying that I do not attach importance to items (i), (ii) and (iv), but it is (iii) about which I really wanted to speak. The noble Lord really must be congratulated for having achieved the inclusion of this in the statute.
The relevant companies do not, of course, have to do anything, but in that case, on the face of the statute, they have to say so. If they are doing something, they have to say that, too, and they have to describe it. I have always thought that this modest measure could have extremely important effects in the sense that we would learn about a wide variety of schemes and that those which seem successful might catch on and be more widely adopted.
Therefore, the question of the information which emerges is of first importance, and I share the interest of my noble friend Lord Rochester in learning how companies have reported and whether the Government are pursuing systematic monitoring. If, as my noble friend has told us, there has been inadequate reporting by some companies, I echo him in asking whether the Government will take any steps to see that the amended Section 16 of the Companies Act, which is embodied in Section 1 of this Act, is respected and acted upon.
My noble friend talked about various forms of monitoring that have been carried out by outside bodies and various awards that are being set up. All that sounds absolutely admirable, but it seems to me that this whole initiative requires a wind in its sails from the Government if it is to get off the ground. The Government may not think that this is a particularly important matter, but in view of their collaboration with my noble friend in the final version which emerged in Section 1, that seems to be improbable. They may possibly feel that it is a waste of companies' time, but I think that anyone reflecting on the state of industrial relations in this country would not come to that conclusion, and I do not believe that the Government will, either.
I said I did not want to make a speech: I merely wanted to reinforce my noble friend in seeking to ensure that this modest but valuable measure should not just lie as a dead letter on the statute book. I hope that when he replies the noble Lord, Lord Belstead,

543
will be able to assuage our anxieties and confirm that the Government are fully committed to the principles embodied in Section 1 of the Employment Act 1982.
9.2 p.m.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, I want to do three things very quickly. First, I want to thank the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, for reminding us of this small section in the Employment Act 1982 for which he was responsible, and then I simply want to remind the House, very briefly, as to how we came to obtain this section, because it leads into the second thing I want to do, which is to obtain, if I can understand it, the Government's view of this section and to see if I can get it right. No doubt if I get it wrong the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, will tell me. Thirdly, I should like to go back to the central point of this Question and, from our point of view on these Benches, ask something about the conclusions reached by Her Majesty's Government in monitoring the actions reported, and, indeed, some questions about when we are going to get (if we are to get them) the results of that monitoring.
The noble Lord, Lord Rochester, began this little journey at the Committee stage of the 1982 Employment Bill. At that stage he was defeated, and the Government in the person of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, said that what the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, wanted would impose a rigid legal system on consultation.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, simply to set the record straight, may I say that at no point was the amendment defeated. The noble Lord may recall that it was simply left over from the Committee stage to the Report stage.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, that is perfectly true. In fact, it was withdrawn in Committee and reintroduced on Report. But the Government at that stage told us why we should not pass the amendment if we had gone to a Division. They said it would impose a rigid legal system. They said that it would be unwise to rush in, pell-mell, in advance of the Vredeling proposals; but the noble Lord was not to be put off and, as he said, he brought the amendment back on Report and the Government once again said that it was rigid, inflexible and at the same time anodyne. However, the House voted for it on that occasion by 116 votes to 112 votes.
At that point the Government—and I give full credit to them—conceded to that vote, and the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, said on 2nd August that the Government accepted the substance of the amendment. At Third Reading on 13th October the Government introduced their own amendment, which differed from the amendment originally introduced by the noble Lord in only a few minor respects, and it became embodied in the Bill. The problem at that stage, as I saw it, was—and I sought to elicit from the Government an answer, but I failed—that we had never had a statement as to why the Government had changed their minds and why what in the past had been regarded as a rigid legal system and something unwise to rush into had become intellectually acceptable to the Government.
544
Therefore, it would help us tonight if we could have from the Minister a clear statement as to what the Government feel about this section: whether it is merely something which they have accepted because the House expressed its wish—and all credit to them if they have—or whether (even more credit to them) they have accepted it because they think it rather a good idea.
There is some evidence that they think it is rather a good idea. There is some evidence that they have changed their minds, because we have had some small statements—not satisfactory, but small statements—from Ministers elsewhere since the passage of the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Rochester, referred to the statement by the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, who said, "We will monitor the Bill." That suggests that the Government are interested in the way in which the Employment Act actually comes out. But on 5th June the Secretary of State for Employment in another place (reported in column 163 of the Official Report) went a little further than that. He said:
"I will take a close interest in these reports"—
that is, the reports of the monitoring of the Act—
"and will expect employers to take the opportunity offered to review and, where necessary, improve their existing arrangements for employee involvement'.
I take the statement of the noble Earl. Lord Gowrie, and the statement of the Secretary of State for Employment, as I have just read it, to indicate that the Government implicitly, if not explicitly, now favour the best possible use of Section 1 of the Employment Act 1982. But the best possible use of it, as the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, said, can only be based upon information—information about where we are now and information subsequently about whether we are improving and making progress, and, if we are not making progress, then action on everybody's part, including the Government's, to try to secure that that progress is made.
So I pass to my third question. What are the Government proposing to do now to ensure, first of all, that we know where we are, and, if we are not where we want to be, that they will assist us in progressing towards the implementation of this section? What we have at the moment—and the noble Lord. Lord Rochester, has mentioned the two sources—are two imperfect but useful unofficial bits of information. We have a survey from IRRS of some 200 companies which is not representative. It is based upon the contacts that it has. It is probably skewed towards the larger firms. which on the whole do rather better in information and consultation than the smaller firms. We also have the 165 contacts of the Institute of Personnel Management. Fifty per cent. of the sample is based on its own members—again for the most part they are good firms, because on the whole it is good firms which have members in IPM—and 50 per cent. or so is based upon a random sample drawn from the columns of the Financial Times.
I do not suggest that either of these two surveys is adequate. I do not think that either of the organisations would suggest that. I do not suggest that either of those two surveys is representative. Nevertheless, such as they are, they are what we have and they give us cause for concern if we are committed

545
to carrying through the implications of Section 1 of the 1982 Employment Act.
For example, let me just refer briefly to some of the findings of the IPM sample. The IPM sought to classify the results under four headings. There were those that were satisfactory because they mentioned all four aspects of Section 1 and also adopted a positive approach to information, consultation and so on. That was the first category. It was found that only 20 per cent. of the respondents came in that category. The next category included those which, true, mentioned all four aspects of consultation, communication, information, and so on, but did not have a positive approach towards these matters: and it was found that 24 per cent. were in that category. Then there were those which referred to only two aspects—that was the third category—and it was found that 30 per cent. were in that category. Seventeen per cent. had a very short reference; and, finally, 9 per cent. made no report whatsoever.
I believe that that suggests to us—and I am not saying that it is representative, but it is all that we have—that more than 50 per cent. of the firms contacted by IPM in a very favourable sample have a level of information, communication, consultation and worker involvement which any reasonable person would say was less than satisfactory. If that is what unofficial surveys say, what would a Government survey say?
So I come to my questions. Is it not implicit in what the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, said that the Government will monitor this? Does it not therefore follow that we can expect, and perhaps shall have from the noble Lord the Minister, a report on where we are at this moment based either on some set of categories similar to those of the IPM or on some other set—a representative or even a total report gleaned from the Registrar of Companies, who has these returns though he does not have to do anything with them, and an authoritative interpretation of these results? If we have them for this year, shall we get them for next year? Therefore shall we be able to make progress in seeing how far this part of the 1982 Employment Act is actually being carried out?
9.12 p.m.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I very much welcome this opportunity to set out the Government's views on employee involvement and on the role of Section 1 of the 1982 Employment Act. Perhaps I may say first of all that the Government are firmly committed to the principle of management informing and consulting employees about matters which affect them. We believe, however, that successful and genuine employee involvement depends as much on a spirit of co-operation as on the existence of formal machinery, and that it is therefore best introduced on a voluntary basis.
But I must come now to Section 1. Indeed I recognise, as other noble Lords who have spoken this evening have done, that it was the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, who was instrumental in bringing this section on to the statute book. Now that it is in operation, I want first of all to answer directly the question which the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, asked
546
me, which was how the Government view Section 1, by saying that the Government see it as one of a number of means of serving two purposes. The first is to encourage the companies within the scope of Section 1 to develop better employee involvement arrangements by bringing the issue to the attention of directors and shareholders. The second purpose of Section 1 we see as being to help the Government to monitor the success of this voluntary approach.
May I take the first of those two purposes which I have identified on behalf of the Government: the encouragement of better employee involvement arrangements. The noble Lord, Lord Rochester, ended his speech by making the point that of course the greatest encouragement for employers and employees to do this is that it is in their own interests so to do. There is no doubt that the employees of any enterprise are an indispensable asset and the more an enterprise can involve its workforce and draw upon their full loyalty and range of talents the more I believe both it and they will prosper. This is especially true today given the opportunities, and the challenges for human ingenuity, of new technology.
But encouragement for better employee involvement also has been coming from a number of bodies representing employers, management and trade unionists active in industry. I have in mind bodies such as the CBI, the IPM, the IPA and the Industrial Society, who all speak with the authority of first-hand experience and who have in recent years—and I am very glad to recognise this on behalf of the Government—pioneered and promoted so many practical approaches to employee involvement. This valuable work, which the noble Lord mentioned in his speech, has borne fruit in many companies, as we know from the Section 1 reports that the Government have already seen.
There is also the role of Government in the encouragement of this movement. Perhaps the most important role Government have in promoting employee involvement and communication is as employers themselves. Several departments have job satisfaction projects. For example, a project at Customs and Excise's VAT Central Unit in Southend is helping to develop an in-house management development programme and is expected to make substantial savings by eliminating unnecessary procedures. Projects in the Department of Health and Social Security have contributed to improvements in service to customers. Many departments in the Government have reviewed their internal communications procedures and are continuing to seek improvements. Finally, the Government's Financial Management Initiative, which is intended to improve value for money in the public service, will itself encourage closer participation, not least by generating intensive discussion between line managers and their supervisors, and their staff, about planned results and resources for the year ahead.
In moving this short debate the noble Lord asked about employee involvement in the public sector. On behalf of the Government, I entirely accept that the principles of good employee involvement practice apply to all organisations, whether they are in the public or the private sector, regardless of the constraints which there were on bringing Section 1

547
into the 1982 Act. The Government seek to set an example as direct employers, as I have just endeavoured to argue, and we encourage managements elsewhere in the public sector to develop arrangements best suited to their own circumstances. There are indeed a variety of existing arrangements in the public sector. I think that the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, with all his experience, and the other two noble Lords, with their knowledge, will know a great deal more about those arrangements than I do.
However, may I say that the Government are more concerned to encourage the development of these arrangements in the public sector in practice, rather than seeking to alter the formal scope of Section 1. In other words, we are more interested in the spirit with which the public sector recognises that Section 1 is there, even though it technically stands outside it, rather than with worrying about whether we ought to try to change the law.
The Government also have a role so far as encouragement is concerned. I know your Lordships are aware of the dramatic increase in employee share schemes, attracting tax relief, that have occurred in recent years. The noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, devoted a good deal of his remarks to these schemes. I really do believe, if I may say so, that the increase in these schemes encourages that understanding of a company's prospects that leads to good industrial relations and increased productivity. I would also claim that the Government have been giving direct encouragement. Speaking at an Industrial Participation Association awards ceremony—the sort of awards to which the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, was referring—on 28th November, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Employment said:
"The law … cannot … bring about good relations at shop floor level between managers and their employees. That can only be achieved by the voluntary effort of managers to improve communication with their employees and to involve employees more in the success of their companies".
In short, I am arguing that the Government have consistently urged companies to develop employee involvement arrangements appropriate to their particular circumstances. I give an assurance that we shall continue to do so at every possible opportunity. When the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, asks what the Government intend to do and asks essentially, "Is it the carrot or the stick that we should resort to in trying to get more action in the future?" I am very clear that the Government believe that encouragement is more effective than reproof. That is the road down which we prefer to go.
Section 1 is complementary to this approach. It ensures that the issue of employee involvement is constantly in the mind of top management. It provides an opportunity for the better practitioners to report what they have achieved and gives a stimulus to others to do better. I should therefore turn to the second purpose that I suggest is served by Section 1 that of monitoring the success of the voluntary policy. The noble Lord, in his Question, asks about the conclusions we have reached from monitoring company reports. It is, I think, a little premature to talk of conclusions. Section 1 only applies, after all, to
548
annual reports covering periods beginning on or after 1st January 1983. Some companies will only have quite recently finished their first reporting year to which the requirement applies. Many more will not have yet published their reports for that year. So we are far from having a complete picture.
Nevertheless, we can, I think, say that we have gained two main impressions from what we have seen so far. First, the reports reveal the extent and great variety of employee involvement schemes that are already under way. The Government have no doubt that to attempt to impose a restrictive legislative framework upon such schemes would only damage the worthy efforts already being made. Secondly, although we must be wary of assuming that a cursory report necessarily means an unsatisfactory situation in practice, it seems likely that many firms have still a long way to go before they can reap the benefits of better employee involvement practices. The Government fully intend to keep on encouraging them to do better, but real improvement, we believe, can only be achieved voluntarily by firms seeing the benefits that they can gain by doing better.
This picture is, I think, confirmed by a variety of other evidence. I think it would be fair to say that those other bodies, such as the Institute of Personnel Management, which have been monitoring Section 1 reports, have drawn tentative initial conclusions broadly similar to our own. However, going wider than Section 1, I draw your Lordships' attention to a few examples of relevant research results. Results from a survey of industrial relations in over 2,000 establishments published by the Department of Employment in 1983 showed that formal consultative arrangements existed in almost three-quarters of firms with 1,000 or more employees and that such arrangements were spreading. I regard that figure as accurate. It is consistent with the somewhat lower proportion of Section 1 company reports making a specific mention of formal consultative arrangements quoted by the noble Lord. Over half of the respondents in a British Institute of Management survey of its membership conducted about a year ago believed that participation in their companies had improved in the preceding three years. A recent Urwick Group employee relations survey showed that over two-thirds of the companies covered introduced refinements to their employee involvement methods during 1982. There are indications that the trend for growth in employee involvement has continued since those encouraging results were produced.
Each of your Lordships has asked: how can further progress be made? An important contribution, which the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, mentioned, is being made by the code of practice on employee involvement produced jointly by the Industrial Participation Association and the Institute of Personnel Management. I am grateful that the noble Lord gives me the opportunity to say a word in reply on this code, because it undoubtedly provides an admirable guide to the many and varied ways forward in these matters. The code derives a great deal of its authority from the fact that it is produced by bodies which represent employees and trade unionists as well as employers and managers. I am not sure that there is any better authority in these matters.

549
The noble Lord asked whether the Government would give some sort of formal stamp of Government approval to this very valuable code. I must say I am not convinced—the Government are not convinced—that the code would be made any more effective by doing this. Of course, there are certain problems, as the noble Lord knows very well, about adopting a code unless it has originated either from an ACAS draft or a draft from the Secretary of State. But the point I should like to make in reply, if I may, is that the Government have gladly commended that code. I am endeavouring to do so again this evening, and we shall certainly go on doing so. I am not convinced, if I may say so on behalf of the Government—if I may repeat it—that by giving in some way some official stamp it would make this code more effective, but I shall of course respond to what the noble Lord asked me and certainly draw my right honourable friend's attention to the view of the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, on this particular point.
It is, I suggest, the will to move forward voluntarily on these matters that should be the absolutely crucial issue here. We do not believe that compulsion, whether by domestic legislation or in the shape of European Community proposals such as Vredeling, can succeed if there is not freely-given co-operation. Such measures also fail to recognise the great variety of existing schemes which is demonstrated by the Section 1 reports. The noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, expressed the hope that Section 1 would be leading to the discovery of valuable different methods of employee involvement. My advice is that this has happened. The Institute of Personnel Management's survey of 165 annual reports, published last September, to which both the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, and the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, referred, recorded a specific reference to at least 20 different methods of employee involvement practised by those companies. In most cases, including, for example, profit-sharing schemes and consultation mechanisms, each method was specifically mentioned in a substantial number of reports. There is, as the IPA/IPM code recognises, no single ideal solution which one can hold up and say, "This is the way to apply employee involvement". Different circumstances require different solutions.
If It may say so also, I think that it is right to remember that Section 1 is a means to an end and not an end in itself, and so shareholders ought to be interested in better employee involvement because it can make a real contribution to the success of their company. Shareholders are a group whose potential influence has often been neglected up to now. I think the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, mentioned them
550
specifically. I should say, on behalf of the Government, that I hope they will take the opportunity which Section 1 gives them to play their part in encouraging the development of further employee involvement.
But despite all that, at the end of the day real and effective employee involvement on the ground means more than any number of words spoken or written in a report. The Government see Section 1 as a means of helping boards of directors to review their employee involvement arrangements, rather than as a narrow reporting requirement. Similarly, the straitjacket that prescriptive legislation would impose would hinder rather than assist the developments which we all wish to see made.
We should be under no illusions, however, about the difficulties that industry faces in attempting to involve more of its employees. We also understand that there is a temptation to give insufficient priority to matters of long-term importance such as this, under the pressure of everyday events. But equally the Government are in no doubt that the more a firm pulls together the minds and ideas of all its employees the better it will respond to the challenge of economic and technological change, and the better it will succeed. Section 1 is valuable in encouraging that. For that reason I am most grateful for the debate which the noble Lord has initiated this evening in your Lordships' House.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, will he confirm that I have understood him correctly? Will he confirm that the Government have no intention of publishing the results of their monitoring exercise? Is that what the noble Lord is saying? We all know about the 1983 workshop survey: it had no questions about Section 1. The noble Lord says that he is monitoring the results. Will he publish the results of that monitoring?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, there is no secret about what the Government have discovered from their monitoring. I should have thought that I had been very forthcoming at considerable length this evening. Therefore, I should have thought that the noble Lord would have been satisfied, not only with my reply but also with the information which the Government are giving as we proceed with this particular matter.
House adjourned at twenty-eight minutes before ten o'clock.

  FALKLAND ISLANDS: CONSTITUTION
  FALKLAND ISLANDS: CONSTITUTION
  BRITISH PASSPORT-HOLDERS DETAINED IN ZIMBABWE
  BRITISH PASSPORT-HOLDERS DETAINED IN ZIMBABWE
  UN INTERNATIONAL YEAR OF PEACE
  UN INTERNATIONAL YEAR OF PEACE
  FORESTRY: NEW PLANTINGS 1956–80
  FORESTRY: NEW PLANTINGS 1956–80
  PRISON SENTENCES AND COUNTRY OF BIRTH
  PRISON SENTENCES AND COUNTRY OF BIRTH
  PRISON AND POLICE CELL BLANKETS: LAUNDERING
  PRISON AND POLICE CELL BLANKETS: LAUNDERING
  NCB/UNION CONSULTATIVE MACHINERY
  NCB/UNION CONSULTATIVE MACHINERY
  CIVIL SERVICE: ETHNIC SURVEYS
  CIVIL SERVICE: ETHNIC SURVEYS
  FACTORY CONSTRUCTION: GRANT AID
  FACTORY CONSTRUCTION: GRANT AID
  HEATING ALLOWANCE PAYMENTS IN SEVERE WEATHER
  HEATING ALLOWANCE PAYMENTS IN SEVERE WEATHER