Sitting of 17 April 1986

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

  TEIGNMOUTH QUAY COMPANY BILL (By Order)
  COUNTY OF SOUTH GLAMORGAN (TAFF CROSSING) BILL (By Order)
  SOUTH YORKSHIRE LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT BILL (By Order)
  BEXLEY LONDON BOROUGH COUNCIL BILL (By Order)
  SHOREHAM PORT AUTHORITY BILL (By Order)

  HARWICH PARKESTON QUAY BILL (By Order)
  Orders for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time upon Thursday 24 April.

  MILFORD HAVEN PORT AUTHORITY BILL (By Order)
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [18 February], That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  Debate to be resumed upon Thursday 24 April.

  BRITISH RAILWAYS (STANSTED) BILL (By Order)
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [24 February], That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  Debate to be resumed upon Thursday 24 April.

Oral Answers to Questions

  Balance of Payments
  Mr. Pikeasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what effects the recent fall in oil prices will have on the Chancellor's forecasts for the balance of payments in 1986 and 1987.
  The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John MacGregor): My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has asked me to apologise for his absence today as he is attending the annual OECD meeting in Paris.
  The forecast in the financial statement and Budget report, which took into account the recent fall in oil prices, showed a current account surplus both this year and in the first half of 1987.
  Mr. Pike: Does the Chief Secretary agree that not only will the fall in revenue from oil prices seriously affect our balance of payments, but so will the fall in oil products? Will that not mean a rapidly growing crisis in our balance of payments? What do the Government intend to do to rectify the present imbalance in our trade in manufactured goods, with which the Budget failed to deal adequately?
  Mr. MacGregor: I do not think that there will be those consequences. In no previous five-year period in recent history has manufacturing output been so successful in holding its market share and keeping pace with world output. The hon. Gentleman will know from the Budget that the buoyancy in the non-oil part of our economy is showing through substantially.
  Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: Is not the fact that the pound has remained reasonably strong during the past couple of months a tribute to the sound management of the economy by this Government?
  Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend's remarks are absolutely right.
  Mr. Robert Sheldon: Is it not clear that not only has the drop in oil prices affected the amount that we are likely to obtain in foreign exchange, but that our competitive position vis-a-vis France, Germany and especially Japan has worsened considerably because those countries have been paying substantial sums for their oil? In view of that, will the right hon. Gentleman consider at least starting talks with OPEC to ensure that we obtain a reasonable price for the very important asset that we own?
  Mr. MacGregor: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that we should have talks with OPEC about keeping up oil prices. He will surely agree that the United Kingdom economy is benefiting considerably from the fall in oil prices, although perhaps not as much as other economies. He must be aware of the beneficial position of the exchange rate in relation to the countries to which he referred.
  Mr. Favell: Is not the United Kingdom doing the whole world a great favour by refusing to talk to OPEC or to put up oil prices to an unnecessary level?
  Mr. MacGregor: I have not the slightest doubt that the fall in oil prices is helping the growth of the world economy, from which we must benefit.

  Unemployment Costs
  Mr. Hardyasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the cost of unemployment in 1986–87; and what proportion of the yield of income taxation this represents.
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Moore): The overall cost to the Exchequer of unemployment and supplementary benefit paid to the unemployed is estimated to be about £5·6 billion in 1986–87. In addition, about £1·5 billion is paid in housing benefit—a benefit which can continue to be paid if the recipient finds employment. This in total is 17½ per cent. of forecast income tax revenue for 1986–87.
  Mr. Hardy: Does not that answer, which touches on part of the cost of unemployment, illustrate the sheer scale of the failure of the Government's economic policies? For how much longer does the Minister think the country can tolerate that?
  Mr. Moore: The answer certainly illustrates the problems and costs of unemployment. However, as the hon. Gentleman will notice from the employment and unemployment data published yesterday, alongside the tragic levels of unemployment there has been a rise in employment of 1 million new jobs since June 1983.
  Mr. Maples: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if we added to the benefits paid to the unemployed the tax revenue lost as a result of their not being in work the total cost would be considerably greater? For a married man on average earnings, it could be as high as £8,000 a year. Does that not provide an excellent justification for the various job subsidy schemes introduced by the Government? Will my right hon. Friend consider extending the principle of job subsidies more generally?
  Mr. Moore: My hon. Friend knows the difficulty of trying to extrapolate the potential additional tax and other revenues from people whom we obviously want to see in full employment. I am sure that he welcomes the additions to the programmes to help the long-term unemployed, which were added to in the Budget.
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Is it not real that the true economic cost of unemployment could well be less, not more, than the total of transfer payments made to unemployed persons?
  Mr. Moore: Clearly, that is correct.
  Mr. John Townend: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the unemployment figures are grossly overstated, especially in the south of England, due to the expanding black economy? How much would the Exchequer save if 500,000 people were forced out of the black economy into the legitimate economy?
  Mr. Moore: Without notice I cannot give my hon. Friend the specific cost, but anything that we can do to lower taxes and further deregulate the economy to reduce the attraction for people to go into what we would all deplore—the black economy—will be of benefit to all.
  Dr. McDonald: In view of the sharp rise of 37,000 in the underlying jobless trend last month, will the Government now consider using the money spent on unemployment benefit and the tax revenue forgone through unemployment on job creation instead of on maintaining the ever-growing army of unemployed?
  Mr. Moore: The hon. Lady would want the House to be reminded of the happy increase in the long-term employed as well as the tragic increase in those who are unemployed. I am sure that she will never begin to grasp the fact that real long-term jobs come not from state expenditure but from the underlying success of enterprise in the economy.

  World Debt
  Mr. Skinnerasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent discussions he has had with the Governor of the Bank of England and others regarding rescheduling of world debt; and if he will make a statement.
  The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Ian Stewart): The Governor of the Bank of England and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer discussed the question of debt at last week's IMF and World Bank interim and development committee meetings in Washington. The meetings welcomed the progress that is being achieved in strengthening the current debt strategy tailored to individual cases and aimed at promoting durable growth in debtor countries.
  Mr. Skinner: Is it not true that the strategy about which the Minister talks has resulted in the debts of Third world countries getting higher and higher as each year passes? Is he aware, for instance, that the debt is about $900 billion? Is it not also true, as the "War on Want" publication issued today asserts, and as hon. Members have done in the House, that Western, Latin American and Nigerian bankers have been living like fat cats while the people in their countries are getting poorer. Is it not time that we changed a system that allows British banks to write off their bad debts against tax while those poor people are getting poorer?
  Mr. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman has overlooked the fact that the fall in the dollar interest rate in particular, and in interest rates generally round the world during the past year, and especially in recent months, has had a beneficial effect on the problems of debtor countries. I do not deny that there is a heavy burden of debt and that it is difficult for many countries to service it, but the fall in oil prices will have benefits other than the reduction in interest rates. Many oil importers, such as Brazil, which is the largest debtor in the world, will benefit substantially from that change.
  Viscount Cranborne: My hon. Friend referred to the effect of the decline in the oil price. Does he accept that that shows that it is universally to be welcomed and that it will help the Third world as well as ourselves?
  Mr. Stewart: Yes, I endorse what my hon. Friend has said. Indeed, the communiqué of the interim and development committee referred to the improved outlook for sustainable growth in the world. Of course, that applies to developing as well as industrial countries.
  Mr. Duffy: What has the Chancellor of the Exchequer done to fulfil the high hopes raised by the Baker-Darman plan, to which, incidentally, his right hon. Friend was party at last September's World Bank and IMF meeting? The House wants to know what are the realistic prospects for that growth-oriented adjustment, about which Mr. Baker had so much to say all winter long.
  Mr. Stewart: The prospects for the Baker plan are good, contrary to much of the public comment about it

  995
  after the meetings, which, as the hon. Gentleman said, I attended last year, and the recent meeting in Washington. The World Bank has approved higher lending limits. It has decided to increase the amount of structural adjustment lending and policy-oriented lending, and there is already greater co-ordination between the IMF and the World Bank. There has also been agreement in those committees that lending by export credit agencies should follow much more closely upon agreement of a programme with the IMF. That initiative was proposed by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor at the 1984 meeting. I am glad to say that the agreement on the multilateral investment guarantee agency, which was initiated—[Interruption.] I am trying to give a comprehensive answer to the question. The United Kingdom was the first of the G5 countries—the Group of Five—to be signatory to that agreement. That is a welcome development.
  Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Does my hon. Friend accept that although the fall in inflation is good news for Third-world countries, the most important single achievement would be to nudge the Bank of England to get interest rates down more quickly? A little risk at home on interest rates would benefit us a little, but would it not benefit even more those who need to have their world debt rescheduled?
  Mr. Stewart: The decline in interest rates around the world has been extremely helpful for debtor as well as industrial countries, such as the United Kingdom. However, significant reductions in interest rates have already taken place over the past few weeks, not only here, but in the United States, Japan, Germany, and, this week, in France. I welcome that development. So long as the inflationary pressures generated by high oil prices continue to abate, that prospect can continue.
  Mr. Blair: I congratulate the Government on embracing so heartily in Washington last week the principle of Government intervention in the economy to stimulate growth. However, the hon. Gentleman is ludicrously complacent about the Baker plan and the position of Thirdworld debtors. Debtors hit by falling commodity prices and by the need to adjust to the United States budget deficit have no prospect at all of increased living standards for their people unless the European and Japanese Governments adopt policies of greatly increased growth—in other words, practise at home what they preach abroad.
  Mr. Stewart: The prospects in Europe and Japan for increased economic growth are encouraging. Indeed, they are part of the basis on which the countries exporting primary products will need to base their plans.
  It is wrong to suggest that the Government are complacent about the Baker plan. Much progress has been made in implementing those measures. Colombia has recently had a loan, which was completed in accordance with the principles of the Baker plan, and I welcome that.

  Drugs (Importation)
  Mr. Sackvilleasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to improve prevention of importation of dangerous drugs through regional airports.
  Mr. MacGregor: Customs and Excise is well aware of the risk of drug smuggling through regional airports. It is making increasing use of risk assessment, intelligence and information in identifying potential drug smugglers
  996
  and drug trafficking routes. Technical aids are also being increasingly used. Although the prevention of drug smuggling is not simply a matter of numbers, additional staff have been allocated to certain provincial airports where the risk is greatest to deal specifically with drugs.
  Mr. Sackville: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the north-west has a major drug problem and that Manchester airport is probably one of the major channels for the importation of heroin into this country? Will he guarantee that whatever resources are made available at Heathrow and Gatwick in terms of Customs manning levels, sniffer dogs, thermal imaging and technology are also made available at Manchester?
  Mr. MacGregor: I am well aware of and share my hon. Friend's concern about this matter. In the three years from 1985 to 1987, 560 new posts were allocated, and the great majority of the new officers were engaged on the prevention of drug smuggling. We are also increasing the number of technical aids and the money spent on their development and introduction. Decisions on manpower at Manchester this year depend on the advice of local managers.
  Mr. Ron Brown: Most hard drugs come from Pakistan, especially through Pakistan International Airways. Will the Minister make an effort to control that situation? Will he ban PIA aircraft from entering Britain and thereby make much easier the job of the Customs and Excise staff, who are under great pressure at present because of cuts?
  Mr. MacGregor: The banning of airlines is not a matter for me. We have increased not only the Customs and Excise staff, but the effort to deal with the problem of drug smuggling at the source.
  Mr. Fletcher: In view of the seriousness of the problem, does my right hon. Friend agree that prevention is cheaper than cure? Despite the resources that he has just announced to the House, will he give an undertaking that the resources made available for the prevention of drug smuggling is demand-led, riot cash limited?
  Mr. MacGregor: We look at this matter each year in the public expenditure round. I hope my hon. Friend will agree that my concern is shown by the fact that we have considerably increased the sums and posts this year. As he rightly recognises, prevention is most important, and it is having an effect, as Customs and Excise is increasingly seizing more heroin and cocaine each year.

  Job Creation
  Mr. Winnickasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has yet quantified the expected effect of his Budget on unemployment.
  Mr. Ian Stewart: The purpose of the Government's economic policy is to encourage a vigorous and enterprising economy, generating sustained growth of output and employment. The Budget proposals include a considerable number of measures directed to the problems of unemployment.
  Mr. Winnick: Despite the way in which the unemployment figures have been fiddled yet again, is it not clear that the true level of unemployment is now more than 4 million? Why does the Minister not state clearly that

  997
  the Budget will do nothing to end the misery of mass unemployment? That is certainly a reason why the Government will be rejected at the general election. Fulham is just the start.
  Mr. Stewart: I disagree with all parts of the hon. Gentleman's question. The dependence of the economy on growth and output for improving employment has been well demonstrated by the figures published yesterday, which show that 1 million new jobs have been created during the past three years. We now have the lowest corporation tax, at 35 per cent., since the war, and the small companies rate is 29 per cent. That is how the private sector can generate the jobs that we need.
  Mr. Forman: The Budget obviously contains some sensible measures designed to alleviate unemployment, but is not the more important factor about which the Treasury must be concerned the rise of 5·7 per cent. in unit labour costs last year and of 4·5 per cent. tbhe preceding year? Therefore, we must see some improvement during the coming period.
  Mr. Stewart: I absolutely support what my hon. Friend has said. Nothing would do so much to improve the prospects for the expansion of British industry, and the creation of further additional jobs than if our unit costs were to rise at a rate not greater than that of our major competitors.
  Mr. Hoyle: Why does the Minister not tell the House that the Budget will do nothing for unemployment? Does he agree that if we are to have a recovery, it must be through industry? Will it not be a great disappointment to industry that interest rates have not decreased today? Is that not a direct result of the free market economy?
  Mr. Stewart: The Budget was well received in the financial market, and I am sure that the sound, responsible economic policies that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer introduced in his Budget are a direct reason why interest rates have been able to fall by 1·5 points since that day.
  Mr. Holt: In reflecting on the Budget and unemployment, does my hon. Friend accept that at least one hon. Member is bitterly disappointed? The Treasury did not take up my suggestion to introduce measures to assist with the relocation of labour by taking account of the figure of £8,000, referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Maples), which if given to an unemployed person in the north to help him relocate in the south, where house prices are out of his reach, would have done much to help unemployment.
  Mr. Stewart: The measures in the Budget which apply to the economy as a whole are a better way of devoting limited resources to encourage the expansion of the economy, which is the best way to maintain jobs throughout the country.
  Mr. Tony Lloyd: Is the Minister aware that, among those who did not welcome the Budget, were manufacturers in the north of England and elsewhere, who for six years have faced real problems, created by the Government, in increasing production, investment and ultimately employment? What in the Budget will increase output and employment in the manufacturing industries?
  Mr. Stewart: The most important factor for manufacturing areas, whether in the north of England or
  998
  anywhere else, is a reduction in inflation. The reduction in interest rates has already taken place and there is a low rate of corporation tax, so industries can reinvest the profits in additional growth in the future.
  Mr. Powley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that many other factors affect the levels of employment and unemployment, besides the welcome measures that were introduced in the Budget? In particular, does he agree that measures such as restrictive practices in commerce and industry, and the introduction of new technology, can affect the level of unemployment? Is it not just as important to pay attention to those measures as to the welcome the measures that were introduced in the Budget?
  Mr. Stewart: I note the point that my hon. Friend has made. Several factors inhibit the working of the labour market, and we have done our best to try to reduce them. We have also tailored the specific employment measures in the Budget particularly to deal with the most difficult areas—the young, the long-term unemployed and those who need training. I am sure that they are the right areas on which to concentrate.
  Mr. Terry Davis: As the original question refers to the effect of the Budget on unemployment, and as the Treasury must have calculated the effects of the Budget on employment, will the Economic Secretary at least admit that he is simply too ashamed to publish that Treasury forecast? As he referred to the Department of Employment figures published yesterday, will he confirm that those same figures show that unemployment has increased by more than 100,000 during the past year, and that the Department of Employment yesterday—only one month after the Budget—announced a resumption in the upward trend of unemployment?
  Mr. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman may have overlooked the fact that the announcement yesterday demonstrated that jobs are rapidly being created in the economy. I should have thought he would welcome that.
  Mr. Meadowcroft: What is the Treasury's estimate of the effect on unemployment of 1p off the standard rate of tax, compared with a 10 per cent. reduction in the employers' national insurance contribution, the cost being identical?
  Mr. Stewart: The reduction in taxation, whether for individuals or for companies, will improve the level of efficiency and incentives in the economy and therefore lead to a continuation of the very satisfactory expansion in the number of jobs in the economy. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the substantial restructuring of national insurance contributions, which was announced in the Budget last year, has come into force only this winter, so the major effect of that restructuring is still to be felt.

  Personal Incomes
  Mr. Chapmanasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what will be the combined income tax and national insurance contribution liability, when the Budget resolutions take effect, of a single person earning (a) £50, (b) £75 and (c) £100 per week.
  Mr. Moore: The figures are £3·98, £13·98, and £24·98, respectively.
  Mr. Chapman: I welcome and appreciate the significantly reduced income tax and national insurance

  999
  liability of the low-paid over the past two Budgets, as instanced by the fact that a single person earning £50 a week has had that liability halved, but if it is correct that a person now earning only half average earnings still has to pay about 25 per cent. in income tax and national insurance contributions, must it not remain a top priority for the Chancellor in future Budgets to reduce that tax liability further?
  Mr. Moore: I thank my hon. Friend for his support for what we have been able to do. He is absolutely right. I would not want to be precise on the figures, but for those on half average earnings about 25 per cent. would go in national insurance and income tax. I welcome his support and that of all hon. Members for anything further that the Government can do, within a sound economic performance, to reduce further the actual rates of income tax.
  Mr. Penhaligon: Will the Minister confirm that if the £100 to which he referred had been unearned and a sole income, the Government's take would have been less? Can the Minister say what is logical about that?
  Mr. Moore: What the Minister can say quite clearly, as my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary said a few moments ago, is that the attempt to reduce national insurance contributions at the bottom, and this time the combination on top of that, has given us a much better opportunity to add to employment.

  Income Tax
  Mr. Greenwayasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what increase would be needed in the standard rate of income tax in order to raise an additional £24 billion of revenue by this means alone; and if he will make a statement.
  Mr. MacGregor: About 20p, bringing the basic rate to 49p in the pound.
  Mr. Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend agree that electors opting for the 41 per cent. VAT rate and the 49p in the pound standard rate of tax, currently on offer by the Labour party, and rising like a cash register all the time, must be practising masochists? The Liberal and Social Democratic parties are not much better. Would it not be much better for the electors to stay with the tax-cutting policies and sound economic growth policies of the Conservative party?
  Mr. MacGregor: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend's last comment, but to be fair to the Opposition I must make it clear that under their policies the electorate has a choice—either 49p in the pound on income tax, or 41 per cent. VAT. To be fair, it is not both, but either.
  Mr. James Lamond: Do not the figures that the right hon. Gentleman has just given show that to finance the £18 billion a year defence budget is costing on income tax alone about 14p in the pound? If that is so, why was it necessary for the Prime Minister to emphasise time and time again that we need hundreds of thousands of American troops in Europe to protect our freedom? How much extra would it cost in income tax if we were able to protect our freedom without American troops?
  Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman is not making a fair point with regard to income tax, because Labour party spokesmen have made it clear that they would not
  1000
  reduce the overall proportionate cost of defence on GDP. Therefore, there is no implication of a reduction in tax from any change in defence policy by the Labour party.
  Sir William Clarke: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if £24 billion was added to public expenditure, a married man would be able to retain only 44p from every £1 that he earned over £70 a week for himself and his family?
  Mr. MacGregor: I agree with my hon. Friend. The proposals which are still being put forward, and which have not been denied, would have a devastating effect on the overall tax burden and, therefore, on jobs in the economy.
  Mr. Hardy: If unemployment were reduced by half, would not the savings to the Treasury and the contributions of those employed, certainly if they were on anything like half average earnings, equal the amount of money that the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) mentioned in his rather extravagant, if obedient, question?
  Mr. MacGregor: It is certainly not extravagant, because the figures that I have put forward have still have not been denied. The hon. Gentleman will know that his right hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench, even with their high levels of expenditure, are not predicting anything like a drop to half in the level of unemployment. They are expecting a comparatively small drop over two years, but are completely ignoring the devastating effect on existing jobs of those high expenditure programmes.

  Public Expenditure
  Mr. McCrindleasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects to commence discussions on public expenditure programmes for 1987–88; and if he will make a statement.
  Mr. MacGregor: Spending plans for 1987–88 will be reviewed during the summer and autumn as part of the 1986 public expenditure survey.
  Mr. McCrindle: I recognise the continuing need to restrain Government expenditure and the important role that my right hon. Friend will play in that procedure, but will he nevertheless take note that there is a good deal of pressure for greater resources to be introduced, particularly into health and education, and will he confirm that, as the new round of expenditure control begins, he will try to keep a balanced view between desirable tax cuts, to which we all look forward, and essential Government expenditure, for which there is considerable public support?
  Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend will agree that the desirable tax cuts are beneficial to economic growth Not only do we receive desirable tax cuts from a prudent control of Government spending but we get policies which can produce lower interest rates, which are equally beneficial. But of course my hon. Friend is right. We must keep a balanced approach to these matters. In particular, we must keep a clear view of priorities within the overall public expenditure programme. I have noted his priorities and he will know that we have devoted great priority to health and, after allowing for inflation, there has been real growth of over 20 per cent. in the health programme since 1979.
  Dr. M. S. Miller: When the Chancellor is considering expenditure programmes for 1987–88, will he take into consideration the fact that today's lower oil prices—and no doubt they will continue for some time—are making it extremely difficult for the coal industry? Will he make sure that the coal industry is not totally emasculated because it is unable to compete with oil?
  Mr. MacGregor: Obviously many of these points are matters for the coal industry, and it will have to look. I or example, at its investment programmes and everything else, both in relation to falling oil prices and the negotiation that it has with its customers.
  Mr. Marland: When these discussions begin, will my right hon. Friend continue to explain to those representing local authorities that substantial savings can be made if they seek to privatise many of the services that they currently carry out?
  Mr. MacGregor: Certainly I believe that the Audit Commission has shown that there are still very considerable efficiency savings to be achieved by local authorities. My hon. Friend is right in saying that contracting out and that sort of thing still have some way to go in contributing to those substantial savings.
  Mr. Sheldon: As the final figures for the public sector borrowing requirement for last year have now turned out to be £2 billion less than anticipated, surely it will make some difference to the right hon. Gentleman's expectation of public expenditure over the forthcoming year?
  Mr. MacGregor: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman, who follows these matters very carefully, will know that we have an expectation of oil prices over the year. Obviously we cannot predict exactly what the future course of oil prices will be, so we must have a prudent approach in that respect. The PSBR, of course, is always within a margin of error, and it is roughly the same margin of error as in recent years, but in a beneficial direction. I think that that illustrates the buoyancy of the non-oil sector of our economy. That has contributed substantially to this favourable outcome on the PSBR, and I would have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would welcome that.
  Sir Peter Hordern: Is it not time, before these decisions are made, for a comprehensive review to be made of one form of public expenditure as against another? Is my right hon. Friend aware of the growing concern at the consistent over-runs in defence expenditure on new, untried equipment, which nobody else appears to want to buy, and the continued underfunding of other programmes, such as the education programme?
  Mr. MacGregor: I agree that the overall look at public expenditure is a very important aspect of each year's public expenditure round. I am making some technical changes in the sequence of putting together the material for collective ministerial discussion and decision this year and I hope that that will contribute further to that process.

  Research and Development
  Mr. Stan Thorneasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much direct support for research and development was contained in the Budget measures.
  Mr. Ian Stewart: The scientific research allowance has been kept at 100 per cent. despite the reduction of
  1002
  other investment allowances to 25 per cent. this year. The proposal in the Budget to allow companies to make one-off gifts to charities will benefit institutions which sponsor research and have charitable status.
  Mr. Thorne: As Government support for research and development compares unfavourably with that of some other industrial countries, how can Britain be competitive in world markets?
  Mr. Stewart: This country devotes a bigger proportion of GDP to research and development than the United States, Germany or Japan. There is, indeed, a substantial contribution to defence research and development. With regard to expenditure on civil research and development, companies with higher profits and a lower tax rate will have plenty of room to increase their expenditure on R and D, as they need to in their investments for the future.
  Sir Anthony Grant: Nevertheless, is my hon. Friend aware that there is evidence of a scientific brain drain, particularly in Cambridge? Will he therefore look rather more favourably upon requests for money for research to be allocated in the next review than was the case in the last one?
  Mr. Stewart: I must remind my hon. Friend that increases in both the science and the research budgets, through the University Grants Committee, were made in the autumn statement.
  Mr. Wrigglesworth: Is the Economic Secretary not aware that the fall in the price of oil will increase the balance of payments deficit by about f2·5 billion this year? In the light of that deterioration in the current account of the balance of payments, is not his reply to the question totally inadequate? Do not the Government need to invest a great deal more in civil research and development?
  Mr. Stewart: The evidence certainly does not suggest that the balance of payments surplus this year will be affected on anything like the scale that the hon. Gentleman suggests. We are expecting a further substantial surplus this year. Set against the decline in oil revenues, one must have regard to the fact that the costs of industry and commerce will be very substantially reduced, with the result that they should become very much more competitive.

  Mortgage Income Tax Relief
  Mr. Nichollsasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent representations he has received calling for the abolition of mortgage income tax relief.
  Mr. Moore: My right hon. Friend has received a few such representations.
  Mr. Nicholls: Is my right hon. Friend able to confirm that some of those representations must have come from the leaders of the alliance party? Does he recall that in a recent article in The Times the right hon. Gentleman the leader of the Social Democratic party approved of the New Zealand Government's action in removing income tax relief? Bearing in mind that the Liberal party's environmental spokesman has also called for the abolition of mortgage income tax relief, should not house owners in this country realise what a threat the alliance is to their homes?
  Mr. Moore: I have not received a representation from the leader of the SDP. However, my hon. Friend will be aware that all hon. Members are equally confused. I noticed that article in The Times, in which the leader of the alliance seemed to approve of New Zealand's policy of abolishing mortgage interest relief. I noticed also the comments of the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon), who seemed to be arguing a different set of policies. The alliance policies on this matter seem to depend upon the audiences that it addresses and the spokesman who address those audiences.

  Inflation
  Mr. Kenneth Carlisleasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the latest estimate for the rate of inflation over the next 12 months.
  Mr. MacGregor: The latest forecast for inflation was given in the Budget statement. I expect the rate to fall to 3½ per cent. by the fourth quarter of this year.
  Mr. Carlisle: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we need lower interest rates if investment and the creation of jobs are to be helped, and that we need to control inflation if interest rates are to fall? Does he also agree that confidence is needed that low inflation will be sustained in future years? What are the prospects for this?
  Mr. MacGregor: The best prospects for maintaining low inflation are to keep a Conservative party in power. My hon. Friend knows that the lowest inflation rate during the whole period of the last Labour Government was above the highest inflation rate under this Government since the last general election. As my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury said earlier, interest rates have been reduced by 1·5 percentage points since the Budget because of prudent economic management and a prudent Budget. The continuation of low inflation helps with that trend.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Would inflation be higher if unemployment were lower?
  Mr. MacGregor: Inflation has come down because of the prudent economic policies that we have pursued. I believe that there is agreement between both Front Benches that one of the greatest contributions to employment is low inflation. The difference between us is that we are achieving the low inflation.

  Depository Receipts (Taxation)
  Mr. Sumbergasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much revenue he anticipates arising from the imposition of a 5 per cent. duty chargeable when United Kingdom shares are converted into depository receipts.
  Mr. Ian Stewart: The measure is intended to compensate for the fact that when shares are bought and sold through the market in the usual way stamp duty is payable on each occasion, but no duty is payable on purchases and sales of depository receipts after shares have been converted into them. The purpose of the charge is therefore to safeguard the £600 million revenue from stamp duty on shares generally.
  Mr. Sumberg: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. However, is he aware that there is a widespread belief that
  1004
  this will put major British companies at a disadvantage when they want to raise capital on the international market? In the light of the fact that there is no reference to it in the Finance Bill, is there some hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has accepted the criticisms and that he will scrap the tax?
  Mr. Stewart: I am aware of the comments of a number of American and British companies, but we have done nothing in the Budget to prevent foreigners buying shares direct in London. We have made it proper to do so by cutting the stamp duty rate with effect from later this year. We will carefully consider representations on the matter of ADR, as we always do on all Budget measures. Those provisions were not included in the print of the Finance Bill, published yesterday, for the technical reasons that I announced on 21 March.
  Mr. Freeman: When my hon. Friend tables amendments to the Finance Bill, will he bear in mind the key principle that we should not be deterring foreign investment in United Kingdom shares?
  Mr. Stewart: There is nothing in the Budget, nor will there be in the Finance Bill, to deter foreign investment in United Kingdom shares through London, and we are reducing the rate for doing so.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Ql. Mr. Penhaligonasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 17 April.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House I shall be having further meetings later today, including one with His Royal Highness King Hussein of Jordan.
    Mr. Penhaligon: Is the Prime Minister aware that her own Secretary of State for Defence, while recording an item for Radio Clyde on Monday of this week, said:
    "My colleagues and I are very dubious"—[interruption.]—"as to whether a military strike"—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Paraphrase, please.
    Mr. Penhaligon: The Secretary of State clearly indicated that he and his colleagues were dubious as to whether a military strike was the best way of dealing with Gaddafi because it would create tensions in other areas and would hit the wrong people. What changed the Prime Minister's mind, from Monday to Tuesday, regarding that very sensible statement?
    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend was indicating that we considered many aspects of the very difficult decision before us—and we did go over them very thoroughly and consulted about them—but we came together to the decision which the House knows.
    Mr. Fry: Will my right hon. Friend find time today to consider what seems to have been the disappointing result of the meeting of EEC Foreign Ministers this morning? Will she consider pointing out to our European allies that the American action against Libya was very much due to frustration and the effective lack of the Western civilised world's opposition to terrorism? Does she agree that if we

    1005
    wish to avoid further strikes, the rest of the countries of the Western world must get together to take effective action to stop terrorism?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. I understand that the result of that meeting this morning is that Europe is prepared to take further measures. We now have to work at turning that general willingness into specific measures. The need to do that has increased because of recent events, and we shall be pursuing the matter vigorously.
    Mr. Kinnock: I am sure that the Prime Minister and I, every other Member of the House, and people throughout the country, will be united in their condemnation of the vile murder of helpless and harmless British citizens in the Lebanon. The Prime Minister said yesterday that if there were any question of using United States aircraft based in this country in a further action that would be the subject of a new approach to the United Kingdom. Does that mean that refusal of the use of bases has now become, to coin a phrase, conceivable?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is making selective use of something that I said. I indicated that in all the circumstances, when we had considered every aspect, that was the conclusion which I had come to, and the conclusion which we agreed—that we should give our consent for the use of those bases. That was after a long period of terrorist action, and after a long period of the United States trying to secure peaceful measures for the prevention of terrorism. That referred to a decision taken after a long period of consideration of both of those factors. In future if the United States required the operational use of those bases again, it would have to ask specially, and we could agree or withhold our agreement.
    Mr. Kinnock: That appears to be the second shift in position by the Prime Minister in the course of a week. As it is clear that the right hon. Lady has the right to say no, as was testified by two former Prime Ministers yesterday, and also has the power to say no, as we heard in the same testimony, will she show the will to resist? Will she accept that that is the very strong desire of the British people, who understand that there are much more effective ways of combating and defeating terrorism?
    The Prime Minister: There has been no shift in position. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman did not fully comprehend it, but there has been no shift in position whatsoever. Yesterday I set out the position on the use of the bases. I am delighted that the right hon. Gentleman renews his statement that he wishes to fight terrorism in every possible way. I hope that in future the Labour party will vote for the prevention of terrorism legislation.
    Mr. Kinnock: I will not take that from the right hon. Lady. The sour and salutary fact about the prevention of terrorism legislation is that it has not prevented terrorism and it will not prevent terrorism. The right hon. Lady provokes terrorism.
    The Prime Minister: The prevention of terrorism legislation has helped the police to prevent acts of terrorism. That is well known. I should be delighted if the Labour party, instead of voting against it, would in future vote for it.
    Sir Fergus Montogomeryasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 17 April.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Sir Fergus Montgomery: Is my right hon. Friend aware that expenditure on the National Health Service in the north-west in 1978, the last year of the Labour Government, was £380 million, and that today it is £903 million? Does my right hon. Friend not think that it is time we began to proclaim the true facts rather then let the Opposition parties continue to perpetuate myths?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is correct to say that the National Health Service is now treating more patients, is better staffed and better financed and makes more effective use of resources than ever before. We shall do our level best to apply the resources to it. I am delighted that nurses, also, are better paid.
    Mr. Norman Atkinson: Will the Prime Minister reconsider the statement that she has just made in reply to the Leader of the Opposition? As she now stands virtually alone among the political leadership of Europe in believing that military retaliation is an effective answer to terrorism of any kind, whether in the middle east or in Northern Ireland, and as I heard members of her own party saying privately last night that if she were to reconsider the views that she had put during yesterday's debate it would not mean either a loss of face for her or a loss of credibility in her own party, and recognising that no member of her own party could say that to her, will she recognise the sensitivity of her views and bring herself into line with the opinions expressed throughout Europe?
    The Prime Minister: The decision was taken after prolonged and wide consideration. We came to that decision. I believe that it was the right decision. Should the United States wish to have the use of those bases again, it would have to make a totally fresh application. Our agreement would be required for their use for such an operation and we could either agree or withhold agreement.
    Sir John Biggs-Davisonasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 17 April.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Sir John Biggs-Davison: As the Leader of the Opposition and others more expert have questioned the present force of the long-standing agreement on the American use of Royal Air Force bases, will my right hon. Friend consider removing any doubts that may remain in the public mind after her clear speech yesterday by inviting President Reagan to make a joint statement with her to clarify the position?
    The Prime Minister: I said yesterday that the arrangements are the same as they have been since they were agreed by Mr. Attlee and Mr. Truman. They have been renewed by every Prime Minister and every President since, and of course were renewed when the cruise missile question arose. They require that if the United States wishes to use bases in Britain for operational purposes it has to seek permission, seek agreement, and that permission can either be given or, as two former Prime

    1007
    Ministers said yesterday, it can be withheld. In my speech yesterday I made a statement about President Reagan's and my understanding of the present position.
    Mr. Steel: Does the Prime Minister now accept her share of personal responsibility for the boosting of Colonel Gaddafi's political support, as we saw on the streets of Tripoli last night? Does she also accept her share of responsibility for exposing British citizens to increased fanaticism and terrorism? Does she now recognise that that is what happens when one turns the British bulldog into a Reagan poodle?
    The Prime Minister: The reputation of Colonel Gaddafi has not been enhanced. I hope that people will look at the terrorism that he has been using for a long period as a political weapon and bear in mind the many lives that have been lost as a result of that terrorist activity. In the Berlin bombing over 230 people were injured. If one lets the threat of further terrorism prevent one from fighting against it, the terrorist has won and he will hold to ransom every free society.
    Mr. Patrick Thompsonasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 17 April.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Thompson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that industrial action by prison officers would be regrettable, bearing in mind the valuable service they perform in our prisons? In Norwich prison the strains are showing to the extent that there have been recent escapes. Will my right hon. Friend do all that she can to support those who are working for them, negotiating better working practices and better arrangements for the benefit of all concerned?
    The Prime Minister: I gladly pay tribute to the prison service for the way in which the staff have carried out their duties. As my hon. Friend is aware, we have put a great deal more resources into building and for the employment of more prison officers. The management of the service has repeatedly made it clear that it is prepared to talk to the staff to try to resolve the problem. The management must do everything that it can to use resources most effectively.
    Mr. Home Robertsonasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 17 April.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Home Robertson: Will the Prime Minister reflect on the prophetic words of the Secretary of State for Defence, who said on Monday that a military strike hit the wrong targets and would give rise to what he referred to as "other tensions"? Such tensions will, presumably, lead to reprisals against innocent British citizens. That has now happened. We in Scotland know that the Prime Minister has taken the right hon. Gentleman's advice often enough when he has been wrong. Why did she not take his advice on this one occasion when he was right? How on earth can he now remain in this bloodstained Government?
    The Prime Minister: As I have said, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence was telling the world that we considered all aspects of the situation that was put before us. Decisions of this kind are not easy. As I said yesterday, terrorism thrives on appeasement.
    Mr. Peter Bruinvelsasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 17 April.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Bruinvels: Does my right hon. Friend share my concern at the very high acquittal rate in trials by jury? Does she agree that today too many jurors have no respect for law and order, do not believe in crime meriting punishment and will do everything in their power to acquit rather than to convict? Will she introduce plans so that the selection of jurors is more representative of those who believe that the punishment should fit the crime?
    The Prime Minister: Some days ago I saw the report that my hon. Friend has in mind and thought that it was very disquieting. The whole position regarding the challenging of jurors has been approached in the White Paper on criminal justice, and the matter to which my hon. Friend has referred will be considered by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

Prison Service
3.30 pm
Mr. David Alton(by private notice) asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement following the result of the ballot by members of the Prison Officers Association in support of industrial action, and say what contingency plans he has for administering Her Majesty's prisons.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hurd): The House will know that this morning the national executive committee of the Prison Officers Association announced that its members had voted for industrial action in the prison service, and that it would take such action unless the issues about which it is in dispute with the Prison Department have been resolved by 7 May.
I believe that the House will share my sense of sadness and concern at these developments: sadness because I do not believe industrial action is in any sense necessary; concern for what this means, not just for prison officers and those in their charge, but for the prison service itself.
Industrial action is unnecessary for two reasons. First, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has just said, this Government have made clear their commitment to prison officers not just in words but by devoting record levels of resources to the prison service. Secondly, industrial action is unnecessary because prison service management has repeatedly stated its willingness to continue to discuss with the Prison Officers Association the issues in dispute. I hope that even at this late hour the leaders of the association will respond positively to that offer.
The Government have a range of contingency measures available to them to cope with any industrial action and its effects. I think that it would be wrong for me to describe these in any detail today: much will depend on whether action is taken and what form that action takes. The Government are prepared and will respond vigorously as necessary. In doing so, we shall have the safety of the public and the security of prisons as our first concerns.
Let me make it clear that we do not seek confrontation. Our chief efforts over the coming days, as in the last few weeks, will continue to be directed to resolving the dispute in discussion with the Prison Officers Association, so that resort to industrial action is not necessary.
Mr. Alton: Speculative reports have appeared in the press during the past week or so to the effect that the Home Secretary is considering sending troops into the prisons. Does he agree that, instead of turning our prisons into industrial battlegrounds, it would be better to begin negotiations with the POA? The Home Secretary's noble Friend Lord Glenarthur said on the radio that he was prepared to talk to the POA, so why did he refuse its request on 8 and 9 April for negotiations? Does not that lead to the sort of confrontation that the Home Secretary has just said he wanted to avoid?
Mr. Hurd: The position is clear. As we have repeatedly said, and as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in her letter yesterday to prison governors, we are ready to consult the POA about manning levels but are not prepared to concede management's right to manage
1010
the prison service. Consequently, we cannot concede to anyone else the right to determine, in negotiations, what manning levels should be. But we are willing and, indeed anxious to consult, and that is the normal procedure.
Mr. John Wheeler: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the basis of the dispute lies in the inflexible working practices and systems of working within the prison service? Does he further agree that the dispute takes place against a background of record levels of expenditure on the prison building programme, the provision of new prisons and resources, and on the number of prison officers employed?
Mr. Hurd: Yes, indeed. That is true both as regards prison building and as regards the number of staff being employed. The number of prison officers has increased by 18 per cent. over a period when the prison population has increased by 12 per cent. So we are improving the situation, despite the large rise in the number of people whom the courts sentence to prison.
Mr. Chris Smith: Does the Home Secretary agree that the root cause of the problem is that prisons, such as Pentonville prison in my constituency, are grossly overcrowded and that prison officers are grossly stretched in the work that they have to do? What plans do the Government have to reduce the overall number of people in our prisons?
Mr. Hurd: I agree that we are trying to remedy decades of neglect. I personally think that it is one of the scandals of administration that previous Governments allowed the prisons steadily to fill and did nothing about a prison building programme. We are now putting that right. But I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we need to make further efforts to persuade the courts that there are tough and practical alternatives to custody when it comes to sentencing first or minor offenders.
Sir John Farr: The whole House is sorry that there has been this breakdown in talks with the Prison Officers Association, but will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that these officers have a splendid record of service to the country and have maintained the security of our prisons very well indeed, holding people of the most violent character without objection? Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind in the discussions that he may be having with the prison officers that they will not be taking action without bearing in mind their responsibilities to the nation and the security of their jobs?
Mr. Hurd: I agree with my hon. Friend's tribute. In the prisons that I have visited since taking office as Home Secretary I have been deeply impressed by the professionalism of the prison service, so I entirely agree. For that reason, I am very anxious that we should bring this dispute to an early close through discussion.
Mr. John Evans: Will the Home Secretary accept that prison officers who are at the sharp end of trying to deal with the vastly overcrowded prisons in the country have a perfect right to be consulted about staffing levels, and will he take this opportunity to deny the statement made by the chairman of the Prison Officers Association that resources are so limited and stretched that prisoners cannot receive even a change of underclothing?
Mr. Hurd: Resources are stretched, but they are less stretched than they were as we gradually make up the results of the decades of neglect of which I spoke.
Mr. Spencer Batiste: Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to reassure all those who live around prisons that he will monitor the security of prisons and will take all steps necessary to maintain that security?
Mr. Hurd: Yes, indeed. That is why I mentioned that the security of prisons would be our first priority if it came to industrial action, which I hope it will not.
Mr. Frank Cook: I am sure that the Home Secretary will agree that a major contributing factor to the situation is a combination of excessive numbers within prisons and the length of time for which prisoners are incarcerated. He knows from his report to clerks, registrars and judges that he has called for fewer and shorter sentences. However, his right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) has called quite publicly for longer and harsher sentences. Will the Home Secretary please tell us who will win the day—he who has the authority, or he who has not?
Mr. Hurd: The hon. Member is inventing a contradiction. My predecessor and I and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster made it perfectly clear that for severe offences we favour severe sentences. What I was saying in my earlier reply was that, for lesser or minor offences, it is very important that the courts should have available to them tough and practical alternatives to custody so that people can do something useful for the community while serving their punishment instead of sitting in prison at great expense to the community.
Mr. Douglas Hogg: Will my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary confirm, first, that prison officers are very anxious to maintain the present high level of overtime, and, secondly, that prison officers are extremely well paid? Taking into account overtime, the average officer earns only about £2,000 less than a Member of Parliament.
Mr. Hurd: I had better not get involved in that last point. However, I am worried about the level of overtime which, on average, makes up about 30 per cent. of prison officers' earnings and, on average, amounts to 16.5 hours per officer per week. I do not think that that is a sign of the proper use of resources.
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Is it not a fact that, under the Government's 1984 Act, the Prison Officers Association has used the Government's most favoured method of a ballot to secure an overwhelming 81 per cent. majority for industrial action? Is not this verdict to be expected when the prisons are bursting at the seams, with almost as many inmates now as the Home Office predicted for 1993? What is the Home Office doing to alleviate that? What will the effects of industrial action be on visitors, the courts, solicitors, prison governors, probation officers and inmates? Why is the Home Office exacerbating this tense situation by being so adamant in ruling out the one key word to which the Prison Officers Association attaches importance—negotiation? What kind of Government is it under whom we have a record crime wave, a unanimous vote of no confidence in it by the Police Federation, and now an overwhelming vote for industrial action by the prison officers?
Mr. Hurd: The right hon. Gentleman is being captious. We inherited a situation in which the prisons had been neglected for decades. We are steadily putting that right by recruiting more prison staff than ever before and by building prisons. As I have now said twice, we must also try to make sure that for minor offences the courts have effective alternatives to custody.
If the right hon. Gentleman is telling us that it is Labour party policy that politicians should tell the courts, regardless of the evidence or the case, how many people should be sent to prison, that is incompatible with having an independent judiciary.

Business of the House
3.42 pm
Mr. Neil Kinnock: May I ask the Leader of the House to state the business for next week?
The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 21 APRIL—Opposition day (11th Allotted Day), first part. Until seven o'clock there will be a debate on education on a motion in the names of the leaders of the Liberal and Social Democratic parties.
Remaining stages of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Bill [Lords].
Proceedings on the Statute Law Repeals Bill [Lords].
Ways and Means resolution relating to the Social Security Bill.
TUESDAY 22 APRIL—Opposition day (12th Allotted Day). Until about seven o'clock there will be a debate entitled "Housing—Putting People First"; afterwards there will be a debate entitled "Transport—Putting People First". Both debates will arise on Opposition motions.
WEDNESDAY 23 APRIL—Second Reading of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill. The six monthly report on developments in the European Community July-December 1985 (Cmnd. 9761) will be relevant to the debate.
THURSDAY 24 APRIL—Remaining stages of the Housing and Planning Bill.
FRIDAY 25 APRIL—Private Members' Bills.
MONDAY 28 APRIL—Second Reading of the Finance Bill.
Mr. Kinnock: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. Does he recall that on Tuesday the Prime Minister told me that during the period between the initial message from the President of the United States and the air strike against Libya on 15 April she and the Secretaries of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and for Defence
"acted together in knowledge of one another's views throughout?"—[Official Report, 15 April 1986; Vol. 95. c. 731.]
Does he further recall the Defence Secretary's broadcast, which was quoted in the House yesterday, and the Foreign Secretary's statement last night, in which he said:
"I had no confirmation of any decision by the President, still less of any decision to authorise raids that night, until I came back to London and met the Prime Minister."—[Official Report, 16 April 1986; Vol. 95, c. 950.]
The discrepancy between those versions of events must be obvious to the right hon. Gentleman and even to the more vociferous of his Back Benchers. Will he please ensure that a statement is made on Monday so that the House can form a judgment on which version is accurate?
Could the Leader of the House give an undertaking that on Monday there will also be a full statement from the Foreign Secretary about his further conference with European Foreign Ministers today?
Now that the Government have so much extra time because of the defeat of the Shops Bill, will the Leader of the House ensure that more time is given to debate other matters that are of pressing concern? I instance the worsening unemployment figures published today, which
1014
show the biggest monthly increase for five years. Can he arrange a day of Government time to debate unemployment so that the appropriate Ministers can come to the House and answer the charge that they are failing to reduce unemployment?
The right hon. Gentleman will have seen the announcement this morning about the bids which have been made for Land Rover and Freight Rover. He has promised a debate on the future of British Leyland. Can he not tell us when that debate will take place?
The need for a debate on foreign affairs is now even more necessary than when I have asked for it during the two previous business questions sessions. When will that debate take place?
Mr. Biffen: I will take the points mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition in the order in which he made them.
I note what the right hon. Gentleman said about the matters which formed part of the run-up to the American action in Libya. I should have thought that they were matters which had been covered by the recent debate and by exchanges this afternoon, but I will convey to the Prime Minister the point that he has mentioned.
On the desirability of a statement by my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary as a result of the meeting with the Foreign Ministers of the European Community, I take the point that the right hon. Gentleman makes and I realise that it will be echoed throughout the Chamber. I will see that the appropriate representations are made.
As to the Shops Bill, before history is set in concrete I should perhaps observe that at no stage did the Government suppose that the Floor of the House would be much detained by the passage of this eminently sensible and self-commending legislation, otherwise they would not have been prepared to suggest that the whole thing could have been propelled by the self-disciplining means of a free vote. We delude ourselves, therefore, if we suppose that there is now a great store of time that can be used for other debates. Nevertheless, I understand the genuine concern about the level of unemployment as exemplified by the recent figures, and I suggest, at least initially, that it is a matter that will very properly feature in the Second Reading of the Finance Bill.
I have already indicated to the right hon. Gentleman the circumstances in which I believe it would be helpful and appropriate for the House to debate the future of British Leyland. I will consider his recent remarks in that context.
I quite understand the interest in the House that there should be a debate on foreign affairs, notwithstanding our recent concern in the middle east, because there are many issues elsewhere, not least in Latin America. Perhaps this matter could be considered through the usual channels.
Sir Peter Hordern: As both the Chancellor and the Foreign Secretary have recently announced that they are in favour of our joining the European monetary system, would my right hon. Friend make time for an early debate on this important matter so that the Prime Minister and the Cabinet may have full knowledge of the House's views?
Mr. Biffen: Most statements about this matter couched in terms of principle have also been matched by conditions

1015
of time, but I take note of what my hon. Friend says. I suggest that the speech that he wishes to make he might essay on the Second Reading of the Finance Bill.
Mr. David Alton: Can the Leader tell the House if the Secretary of State for Education and Science will reply personally to the debate on Monday? Secondly, can he give the House any news about whether there will be a debate on the NIREX sites, the orders for which have still not been laid, and a debate on the report of the Select Committee on the Environment on the disposal of nuclear waste?
Mr. Biffen: I cannot confirm the first point, but the hon. Gentleman might also at some time inform the House whether any Privy Councillor from the Liberal party will take part in that debate.
As to the second point, I take account of the concern that there should be early consideration of these matters, but I cannot go further than that.
Mr. Andrew Rowe: Given the unequivocal statement of Labour party policy presented by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) that the law against shops opening on Sundays should now be enforced, will my right hon. Friend consider providing time to discuss the consequences of that?
Mr. Biffen: I think that at moments of synthetic triumph all sorts of rather dangerous comments are made. I would not like to go beyond that—not in the mood of charity that I entertain this afternoon. I do not think that the Government could provide very much more time for an inquest into the unhappy circumstances of last Monday.
Mr. Martin J. O'Neill: Will the Leader of the House find time to take account of the end of the long take-over saga of the Distillers company, which should reach its conclusion tomorrow? Will he also find time for a discussion on the operation of monopolies and mergers legislation, because many of my constituents who are employees of Distillers feel that they have been rendered mere pawns in a stockbrokers' game?
Mr. Biffen: Without wishing to elevate the temperature in the Chamber, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that I very much understand his point. I shall refer his general remark to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.
Mr. Jonathan Aitken: Does my right hon. Friend recall the breakneck speed with which the Channel tunnel project was announced, evaluated, and voted on just after Christmas? Can he now solve the mystery of what has actually happened to the proposed Channel Tunnel Bill—
Mr. Robert Adley: It is on the Order Paper today.
Mr. Aitken: I had hoped that the Bill would sink without trace. As it was promised before Easter, can my right hon. Friend now advise the House about its progress?
Mr. Biffen: The Government entertain the aspiration, which I hope is well founded, that that legislation might have better prospects than some other.
Mr. Jack Ashley: Is the Leader of the House aware that there is now a great deal of publicity about the number of children dying from
1016
whooping cough? Are not the Government now urging further vaccination of children? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, although I support the immunisation programme, I also support the need for adequate compensation for vaccine damaged children, some of whom are severely brain damaged?
I am not terrified by the innuendo from Ministers and civil servants that those who support the claim for adequate compensation are damaging the immunisation programme. We are not. We support the immunisation programme, but we also demand proper compensation. Have not the Government admitted that one in 100,000 children are severely brain damaged by vaccination, with some of them being turned into cabbages?
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that early-day motion 74 has been supported by 200 hon. Members from both sides of the House asking for adequate compensation?
[That this House believes that the proposed £20000 payment to vaccine damaged children is grossly inadequate for a lifetime of severe disability; expresses its strong support for the immunisation scheme; but calls upon the Government to provide the few tragic and unwitting casualties of this state-sponsored scheme with compensation comparable to that given to industrially injured people, or that awarded by the courts to those similarly disabled.]
The Government have refused adequate compensation for devastated families. They do not want to pay them £20,000. Will the right hon. Gentleman find time for a statement on this matter next week?
Mr. Biffen: I quite understand the right lion. Getleman's point. He properly observes that the early-day motion has the general endorsement of hon. Members in all parts of the House. I cannot hold out any tangible and specific hope, but I shall certainly draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services to the right hon. Gentleman's request for a statement.
Mr. Tony Marlow: Would it be possible to introduce legislation to take from individuals the right to take out an act of mandamus against local authorities in order to restrain the army of bigots who would otherwise be released by the parliamentary wimps who sacrificed their judgment on the altar of what they thought to be short-term expediency on Monday night?
Mr. Biffen: I do not think that I am in any mood today to be lectured about expediency in relation to last Monday—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] I think that I was flexible beyond belief.
My hon. Friend's point is valid, but there is no prospect of an early passage in Government time of the legislation that he seeks. No doubt he knows well that there are opportunities available for private Members using their time.
Mr. Robert Parry: Has the Leader of the House seen early-day motion 685 concerning the Transport and General Workers Union's campaign on the use of the weedkiller 2–4–5,T?
[That this House congratulates the Transport and General Workers Union on its national and international campaign against the manufacture and use of the weedkiller 2–4–5,T, in view of the link between the use and the incidence of cancer and other serious medical side

1017
effects, particularly amongst pregnant women through birth deformities, which has been reported worldwide; notes the recent meeting betweeen the high powered delegation of the Transport and General Workers Union and Mr. Lange, Prime Minister of New Zealand, which is the only country in the world still manufacturing the weedkiller; warmly welcomes the promise from Mr. Lange that he will re-examine his country's policy on the manufacture of 2–4–5,T; and calls upon the Government of New Zealand to act urgently to stop the manufacture of this deadly substance.]
Will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Foreign Secretary to make representations to the New Zealand Government concerning the manufacture of this deadly substance, especially in view of the effect that it has on pregnant women?
Mr. Biffen: Yes, I will certainly make those representations.
Mr. Andrew MacKay: In the light of the decision of the House to reject the Shops Bill, would it be wise next week for us to have a debate on the two possible immediate scenarios which will ensue: a widespread and increasing flouting of the law, which would be intolerable, or widespread and increasing prosecutions, which would be immensely unpopular?
Mr. Biffen: A short period of abstinence from consideration of those problems would do us no harm. However, I can understand that the problems will come to meet us some months hence.
Mr. Eddie Loyden: Will the transport debate include the effect of EEC regulations on lorry drivers in Britain whose conditions and hours are being affected by EEC regulations? If it cannot be embraced in the debate, will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Secretary of State for Transport to bring the matter before the House?
Mr. Biffen: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the subject for debate was chosen by the Opposition. I am sure that the Opposition Front Bench will have listened with constructive sympathy to the hon. Gentleman's request.
Mr. Eric Forth: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the European Communities Bill which will be debated next Wednesday concerns the Single European Act? Will he explain what role the House or a Standing Committee can have in judging that Act and seeking to amend it when it comes to us apparently already agreed by the Heads of Government?
Mr. Biffen: The answer to my hon. Friend's first question is yes. The answer to his second point is that that will be determined by the course of the debate.
Mr. Alex Carlile: Will the right hon. Gentleman find time for a debate on the manning levels in the prison service, and especially why the Government have such a patronising attitude to the Prison Officers Association that they are prepared to consult it but not negotiate with it?
Mr. Biffen: The hon. and learned Gentleman may have been out of the Chamber when the matter was raised by—[HON. MEMBERS: "He was here:] In that case, he has no excuse for asking such a question.
Mr. Michael Forsyth: Although the House has declined to bring the advantages of shopping on Sundays to the English as we enjoy them in Scotland, will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the merits of extending to England the benefits which we enjoy in Scotland of more liberal licensing hours?
Mr. Biffen: It would be unrealistic for the House to suppose that the future of flexi-hours will not have been conditioned to some extent by Monday's vote.
Mr. Harry Ewing: Does the Leader of the House realise that I have a good reason for asking a question about prisons? Does he remember that last Thursday I asked him to arrange for the Secretary of State for Scotland to make a statement on the crisis in Scottish prisons? Did he do anything about that? If he did not, will he do something this week before Scotland is faced with the same position as prevails in England and Wales?
While we are discussing prisons, would the Leader of the House discuss with Mr. Speaker introducing a prison system whereby those who behave themselves get preferential treatment while those who misbehave—in the House—are punished?
Mr. Biffen: Of course, I recognise that the hon. Gentleman has a valid reason for asking that question. May I say at once that so did the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile). As his immediate neighbour, I would not wish to be thought dismissive of his contribution. He was not asking a question but making a point. Although that is frequently done, I like to have the chance to pay back in kind from time to time.
Of course, I shall again take up the hon. Gentleman's point in respect of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. I understand the penal programme that he wishes to apply to the House and although I also understand why he should wish to invoke Mr. Speaker in this matter, I think it is something better left to the usual channels.
Mr. Richard Holt: My right hon. Friend is always concerned about employment and unemployment, and I understand that he has already this afternoon provided an opportunity for us to debate British Leyland. However, British Leyland is only one company, whereas there is an entire industry in this country—the furniture industry—in which we are importing twice as much as we export. The situation has changed over five years. If we are to maintain our manufacturing base in furniture, may we have a debate in the House and reverse current trends?
Mr. Biffen: I wish that current trends could be reversed merely by debate in the House. If my hon. Friend wishes to bring those wider considerations to the attention of the House, I think that in the first instance he should seek to have the matter debated on the Adjournment.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. There is to be a statement, and then we have a fairly heavy day. I will allow business questions to continue for a further 10 minutes, and I hope that in that time, or less, everyone will have been called.
Mr. Frank Cook: The Leader of the House has already told the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) this afternoon that representations will be made for early consideration of the report about the NIREX proposals. The right hon. Gentleman should be aware of the widespread anxiety felt throughout the country that the Government's response to the report on radioactive waste by the Select Committee on the Environment may well take a written form and that opportunity to debate that report will not be accorded prior to discussion of the special development orders when they are placed before the Chamber. Will the right hon. Gentleman now assure us both that there will be a debate on the report and that it will take place before the SDOs are discussed?
Mr. Biffen: I will bear in mind all the points that the hon. Gentleman has made, and his concern that we should move with some expedition in resolving those matters.
Mr. Sydney Chapman: Next Thursday we shall debate the Report stage of the Housing and Planning Bill. The Committee stage was completed only seven clays ago. During Committee stage Ministers promised amendments, not only arising out of assurances and commitments made during debate, but because amendments were successfully carried by Back Benchers. Will my right hon. Friend assure us that those Government amendments will be brought forward next Thursday and not left for later discussion in another place?
Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend makes a fair point, and a House of Commons point. We will certainly see that as many of the amendments as possible are dealt with in the House, but it may be unavoidable for some of them to be dealt with in another place.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Table Office rules do not allow questions to be put on DefCon—that is the defence conditions agreement between Britain and the United States. Is there not therefore an obligation on Ministers to make a statement next week on the changes from categories 5 to 4, 3, 2, 1, or whatever they were, in the level of nuclear alert earlier this month as a result of the Libyan crisis? Is there not also an obligation to make a statement on the situation in which launchers of cruise missiles left their bases on the night of 10–11 April, both from Greenham and from Comiso, in very extraordinary circumstances that were not related to the exercise on 15 April? Should not there be an explanation by statement as the Table Office does not allow—I do not blame the Clerks—an explanation by parliamentary questions?
Mr. Biffen: The hon. Gentleman makes two quite separate but profoundly important points. I will certainly refer them to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.
Mr. Douglas Hogg: The Leader of the House will remember that before the Easter recess I asked him to confirm that the special development order would not be laid until there had been a full debate on the Select Committee report relevant to NIREX. The Leader of the House will recall that he said that he treated that proposition with very considerable sympathy. Will he confirm to the House that his sympathy is in no way diminished but that, on the contrary, it has been enhanced?
Mr. Biffen: My sympathy is a static consideration.
Mr. Jeff Rooker: The Leader of the House is first and foremost a parliamentarian. Is he happy to have announced business for next Thursday on a Bill that has no yet been reprinted? The Minister's office informs me that work has not yet been started on the amendments necessitated by a string of concessions made by Ministers—irrespecthe of the defeats that they suffered. Hon. Members and others will be in no position to prepare for an important debate on a number of matters, including the removing of security of tenure from 6 million families.
Mr. Biffen: I was aware of some of those factors when I answered the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman). I am advised that the Bill as reported by the Standing Committee will be available today. We therefore have to take account of the time that will be available for amendments to be tabled before next Thursday. I trust that the general wishes of the House can be met.
Mr. Michael Fallon: May we have an early debate on the success of the prh atisation programme, which has directly benefited over 1·5 million people? The Labour party could then clear up the confusion over its policy of compensation and renationalisation, in case it should ever come to power.
Mr. Biffen: I have great sympathy for that request, not least because it comes from one of my hon. Friends who is most dedicated to maintaining the intellectual initiative that sustains the programme. However, I have a much more prosaic task—that of handling Government business—and I do not think that there will be any better opportunity than the Second Reading of the Finance Bill.
Mrs. Ann Clwyd: On 12 February, at the end of a debate on the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill, the Chairman of Ways and Means promised to look at ways of reviewing the private Bill procedure. On 10 April, the Leader of the House said that the matter was still under consideration. What progress has been made?
Mr. Biffen: Consideration remains the state that I have to report, but I appreciate the hon. Lady's concerr that the matter should be expedited.
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Will my right hon. Friend agree that the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon) goes even wider? There is some confusion about the fate of privatised industries. Is my right hon. Friend aware that the leader of the SDP has approved the privatisation of British Telecom, but that in an article in The Guardian the leader of the Liberal party raised the prospect of renationalisation? Should we not have a debate to try to clear up the threat that those contradictory policies pose to assets that people have bought with their own hard-earned money?
Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend mades a compelling and pertinent case. However, I am bound by limitations of time. I also have sufficient faith in my hon. Friend's advocacy to feel confident that the good folk of Devon will know about the matter whether or not there is a parliamentary debate.
Mr. John Evans: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that since the Government took office the House of Commons has not discussed in Government

1021
time the affairs of the Health and Safety Commission, which affects the life and safety at work of more than 20 million people. Will the Leader of the House consider the matter and announce, in the immediate future, at least one day's debate on that subject?
Mr. Biffen: I take note of what the hon. Gentleman says. It is a most important topic. However, in all fairness, I suggest that the hon. Gentleman might like to put a question to my right hon. and learned Friend the Paymaster General at Question Time next Tuesday.
Mr. Michael Brown: I revert to the question about NIREX. I have in my hand a reply from the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment to a parliamentary question. That reply shows that it is the Secretary of State's intention to lay the SDO at the end of April. Can the right hon. Gentleman reconcile what he has said today with that answer to my parliamentary question?
Mr. Biffen: I should like to look at the parliamentary answer before making a considered comment, but I assure my hon. Friend that the answer that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) stands.
Mr. Andrew Faulds: As the body count has tragically started of Britons killed in revenge for the Prime Minister's involvement with President Reagan's murder of Libyan civilians, will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for the Foreign Secretary to make a statement on Monday—he is absent at present—about what additional security measures are being introduced to defend the staff of British embassies, who, as I was told by an Arab diplomat at lunch today, are not sufficiently defended in present circumstances, and individual Britons working abroad in Britain's interests in sensitive areas?
Mr. Biffen: Obviously, I take note of the hon. Gentleman's points, and I shall ensure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary is aware of the hon. Gentleman's request. However, the hon. Gentleman may like to consider the statement that will be made just after business questions.
Mr. Peter Bruinvels: Now that, thankfully, the Shops bill is no longer with us, will the House have an opportunity to debate the Shops Act 1950 to remind all large local authorities that it contains a power to prosecute any large companies for staying open on Sundays? Will my right hon. Friend also remind both my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary of my continuing concern about the 157 technicians at Heathrow airport and the 27 trainee pilots, all from Libya who are still working here and who may represent a potential security threat to all who live in the United Kingdom?
Mr. Biffen: I hope that we shall not have to live too long with the residue of the Shops Bill. One of the first laws in politics is, "In a moment of triumph, do not crow." On my hon. Friend's second point, he raised anxieties of real substance, and I shall ensure that they are conveyed to both my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will the Leader of the House confirm that at last week's Cabinet meeting there was a discussion paper on the question of coal in relation to the fall in oil prices? Is he aware of the conflicting reports in the newspapers arising from that discussion paper? One suggests that the Government will allow market forces to operate, with the result that many more thousands of miners will lose their jobs. Is he further aware that in the 1950s and 1960s successive Governments of different political persuasions followed that course when they had cheap oil, and that the net result was that after the price of oil quadrupled we were short of energy and needed coal in abundance? Will he ensure that we have a debate or statement on that matter so that we can make it absolutely clear that we shall assure the livelihood of those miners who are presently engaged in the coal mining industry, and not follow the short-sighted policy of the 1950s and 1960s?
Mr. Biffen: Regarding what took place in Cabinet last Thursday, alas, one of the inhibitions made on me is not to report to the House or the press what goes on in Cabinet. It is a most irksome restraint, but I must live with it.
On the hon. Gentleman's second point, there is real concern throughout the energy consuming public, both industrial and domestic, that there should be a proper balance of alternative supplies of energy, within which coal will undoubtedly play a major part. I shall certainly consider the necessity of having a debate on that proposition.
Mr. Michael Meadowcroft: Is the Leader of the House aware that the United States Administration have announced that on 23 April they intend to impose draconian regulations impeding exports to the United Kingdom which will impinge illegally on United Kingdom companies? Does he consider it important that we should have an urgent debate on the question of extra-territoriality?
Mr. Biffen: The whole question of extra-territoriality undoubtedly raises profound economic and trade issues which are of major national concern. I shall certainly convey the anxiety which has been expressed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. He will certainly be encouraged to know that he has the support of the traditional free trade element of the House.
Mr. David Young rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Obviously the hon. Member was not present when I announced that I could not allow questions to continue beyond 10 past 4 o'clock, and it is now 13 minutes past.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not a gross discourtesy to the families of the hostages who were so tragically lost in Lebanon today that the Prime Minister has sought to leave the Chamber and to quit before this highly important statement—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that that is not a matter for me.

Lebanon (Terrorism)
4.14 pm
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Tim Renton): With permission, Mr. Speaker. I should like to make a statement on British interests in the Lebanon and terrorism.
The British ambassador to Lebanon, Mr. John Gray, has reported that three bodies were found near Beirut earlier this morning. Pinned to one of the bodies was a notice claiming that they had been excuted as "CIA spies" by an organisation calling itself the Arab Fedayeen. Mr. Gray is urgently trying to arrange positive identification of the bodies. As the House will know, Mr. Alec Collett, a British employee of UNRWA, was kidnapped in Lebanon on 25 March 1985. Two British citizens, Mr. Leigh Douglas and Mr. Philip Padfield were kidnapped on 28 March this year, and Mr. Brian Keenan, of dual British and Irish nationality, was kidnapped in Beirut on 11 April. The House will wish to express to the relatives of the kidnap victims their sympathy in the terrible anxiety that they are now undergoing after all the acute stress to which they have already been subjected. Further information will certainly be given to the next of kin as soon as it is received.
Mr. Gray has also reported that another British citizen was kidnapped earlier this morning in west Beirut on his way to the airport. So far we have not received any claim of responsibility for his abduction. The ambassador is making inquiries with the authorities in Beirut and with community leaders.
Last week Mr. Gray repeated and reinforced his standing advice to British citizens against remaining in west Beirut and other areas in Lebanon where British citizens are at particular risk. All reasonable security precautions have been taken to protect Mr. Gray and his small staff. We have asked him urgently for his further advice on staffing of the British embassy and the safety of the remaining British community.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary held an urgent meeting with his European colleagues in Paris this morning to discuss terrorism. A further meeting will be held early next week to discuss implementation of the recommendations of experts.
I understand that a suspected explosive device was found this morning at terminal 1 of Heathrow airport. The terminal was evacuated while the device was made safe. A women was arrested by the police.
This morning four rockets hit the ambassador's unoccupied residence in west Beirut. Mr. Gray was not present at the time, and he reports that there were no casualties, although some damage was caused to the building.
The whole House will wish to pay tribute to Mr. Gray and his staff, who are doing their work in the Lebanon with skill and courage in dangerous conditions.
Mr. Donald Anderson: We on this side of the House express our condolences to the bereaved and our admiration for the ambassador and his staff in extremely difficult conditions in Lebanon. We take no satisfaction from the realisation of our prediction that we in Britain will now be in the front line of terrorist outrages.
The Arab Fedayeen, or Arab commando unit, which has claimed responsibility for the three deaths in Lebanon,
1024
has apparently claimed that those three murders were in direct retaliation for the United States' aggression against Libya. Does the Minister have any further information on this subject? Is it correct that those three are the first tragic victims of the Prime Minister's completely isolated support for President Reagan? What progress had the Foreign Secretary made in his negotiations last week with the Syrian Government about the release of those three Britons—progress which appears, tragically, to have been cut short?
What information is there about the terrorist group responsible for the outrage of shelling our residence in west Beirut? If sufficient evidence is available to show that a neighbouring Arab country was responsible, whl the Government be tempted to invoke article 51—the self-defence article of the United Nations—and seek a retaliatory strike against that country? Where do we draw the line as we add up the mounting cycle of violence?
It is said that armed groups are now roaming the streets of west Beirut in search of foreigners as their victims. In those circumstances, what advice is the Foreign Office giving to residual staff at our embassies and to other British nationals? Is evacuation a practicable option in these circumstances? What special measures are being taken to protect our embassies and missions, both in the middle east and elsewhere, particularly in places where the Libyans have maintained their missions?
Finally, during the debate last night the Foreign Secretary told the House that he would today again urge our European partners to meet the challenge of terrorism. In the light of the results of this morning's meeting, is the Minister convinced that our European Economic Community partners have risen to the challenge?
Mr. Renton: I thank the hon. Gentleman for the sympathy that he has expressed to the relatives of the kidnap victims. His sympathy is obviously shared by the whole House. At present we do not have any information about who was responsible for these murders. Indeed, the bodies have not been identified. As soon as we have the information, we will contact the next of kin if the victims are British.
As the hon. Gentleman knows, "fedayeen" is a word commonly used in Arabic. Thus, the Arab fedayeen sounds like a wide group, not one of the specific terrorist groups on which we have previously received information. We cannot therefore be certain at this stage of the type and identity of the group claiming responsibility.
The shelling of our west Beirut residence obviously sounds alarming, but I point out to the hon. Gentleman that rocket attacks in west Beirut have been all too frequent in recent months. Our chancery building was subject to a rocket attack in August 1984. For that reason, for months we have arranged for all the United Kingdom staff to sleep in east Beirut rather than west Beirut.
As I said in my statement, we have given instructions to posts throughout the world, and particularly those in the middle and near east, to look carefully at their security measures. We shall be reinforcing this advice specifically in regard to Beirut after receiving further advice front the ambassador. The remaining British citizens in the Lebanon have for a long time been advised not to travel, for example, in west Beirut, in the Beka'a valley, or south Lebanon, unless they absolutely have to do so. Our ambassador has frequently pointed out to them that he is

1025
not able to give them the protection that British citizens abroad would normally receive. He is considering this advice to see whether it should be strengthened.
The EEC meeting this morning was only an interim meeting for Foreign Ministers to discuss progress, particularly on the subject of international terrorism. They repeated their determination to take quick action in this respect. Next week, at the Foreign Affairs Coumcil meeting on Monday, it is expected that expert groups will submit reports, with their recommendations for action on international terrorism.
Finally, I refer to the hon. Gentleman's comments about the British Government's support for United States' action against terrorist targets in Europe. Is he really suggesting that Governments should not take such action; that their hands should be tied because of threats made to them by terrorists and kidnappers? The Government carefully considered the position of our hostages in the middle east and elsewhere, but if we had allowed our hands to be tied and not taken action of the sort that we deemed it right to take, because of possible reprisals by kidnappers, that would have been seen as giving in to terrorist criminals, and that is not the sort of action that the House would expect from this Government.
Sir Peter Blaker: My hon. Friend has the support of Conservative Members in the tribute that he paid to our ambassador in Beirut and his staff, and in his expression of sympathy to the relatives of the British kidnap victims. Is he aware that this side of the House rejects most of the conclusions drawn by the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson)? My hon. Friend and his right hon. Friends have our support for the courage that they are displaying in doing what they believe to be right in the face of international terrorism.
Mr. Renton: I thank my right hon. Friend both for his expression of sympathy for the relatives of the victims and for his warm support for the work being done by Her Majesty's ambassador in Lebanon and his staff, and I will ensure that his expression of support is passed on to those concerned.
Mr. James Wallace: I associate myself and my right hon. and hon. Friends with the Minister's expression of sympathy to the relatives of the kidnap victims, and also in paying tribute to the work being done in very trying circumstances by Mr. Gray and his embassy staff in Beirut.
Alliance Members profoundly disagree with the Government's decision to support the American intervention in Libya, but we unreservedly condemn acts of terrorism. Does the hon. Gentleman not think that there are more effective ways of dealing with and combating terrorism than the method chosen, such as the ways which we believe are being discussed by the European Council of Ministers and which we hope will be implemented? Does he not believe that by standing alone in Europe and aiding and abetting American military action we have made British subjects and citizens more vulnerable to retaliatory attacks, the first victims of which he referred to in his statement today?
Mr. Renton: I thank the hon. Member for his expression of sympathy and his support for the ambassador
1026
and his staff. I agree with what he said about action of the past few hours in relation to British hostages. One thing that this shows is the clear need for international action against international terrorism, whether ordinary terrorism or state-sponsored terrorism. This is the message that my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary has been hammering home for many months, at meetings in the EEC and at the United Nations, and we hope that more positive action will be taken in the months ahead.
I am sure that the House does not want me to go over the debate that occupied seven hours last night, but surely it is right that in certain circumstances military action in self-defence is necessary in order to discourage and prevent further acts of terrorism.
Sir Peter Mills: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that, sadly, it looks as though it is one of my constituents who has been killed, and will he join me and the House in sending our deepest sympathy to the father and relatives at Bideford? My hon. Friend said that it is important for all British subjects to get out of Beirut, but how can they do that without some assistance? I understand that one or two people who have gone to the airport have been captured. Will my hon. Friend make arrangements somehow for such people to be protected?
Mr. Renton: I thank my hon. Friend for his opening remarks. I am sorry to hear that one of the victims may be a constituent of his. I know that the House would want to associate itself with the expression of sympathy to his constituent's family. To avoid misunderstanding, I emphasise that my advice was not, to use my hon. Friend's words, that it is important for all to get out. I drew a careful distinction between west Beirut and east Beirut. Anyone who has been to Beirut recently, as I did in December, will know well the reasons for that distinction.
Our advice through the embassy to British residents has for many months been that they should not travel through west Beirut unless they have good reason to do so. At the moment the same advice does not apply to east Beirut. There is, of course, always the possibility that people living in the Lebanon can leave by ferry, which is the usual method for coming to and from Beirut. That is a possibility which I am sure many people will be thinking about at present. I bear in mind my hon. Friend's remarks about the safety of those travelling to the airport in west Beirut, and I shall pass those on.
Mr. David Young: All hon. Members will be saddened by the news of any victims of terrorism, no matter from where it comes. I was glad to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) say that the answer to terrorism is international action. Our criticism is that there has been unilateral action. Having met the ambassador from the Lebanon and his delegation only a few days ago, what support are the Government giving for United Nations resolution 425 for the removal of American-backed Israeli troops from the south of Lebanon, which would be a major means of stabilising that region? Will the Secretary of State make a statement as soon as possible?
Mr. Renton: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his opening remarks. I do not agree that the United States' action was unilateral. Rather, it was action by the United States, supported in one respect by the United Kingdom,

1027
on behalf of the international community, which is threatened by international terrorism. Someone earlier referred to the front line of terrorism. We have been in the front line for at least the past 10 years, since the agents of the Libyan Government started to commit their crimes in Britain.
The hon. Gentleman will know that we strongly support the continuation of the mandate of UNIFIL in south Lebanon. That is coming up for discussion at the United Nations. We have always strongly urged Israel to complete its evacuation from south Lebanon. That has been the Government's consistent policy, and I hope that it will be seen to be put into effect.
Mr. Ralph Howell: I join my hon. Friend in offering my deepest sympathy to the families and friends of the victims in Beirut, including my constituents, Mr. and Mrs. Douglas, who have suffered deeply since the abduction of their son. May I have an assurance that everything possible will be done to ascertain the facts of what has happened in Beirut as soon as possible?
Mr. Renton: Yes, I can give that unqualified assurance to my hon. Friend. We expect to hear within hours about the identification of the bodies, and that information will be communicated immediately not only to the next of kin but to any Members of this honourable House who, for constituency reasons, are associated with the victims.
Let me take this opportunity of thanking all those many Governments, organisations and individuals who have tried in recent weeks to assist us, either in locating or in securing the release of the various hostages. Their work has been magnificent, and if for three of them it has ended today, that is a great tragedy.
Dr. John Gilbert: In view of the deteriorating security situation in Beirut, do Her Majesty's Government have not only contingency plans for the evacuation of British residents there, but military units to assist in such an evacuation, as was the case recently in Aden?
Mr. Renton: I note what the right hon. Gentleman says. The evacuation in Aden was substantially assisted by the chance presence of Britannia, and we cannot always call on the royal yacht for this purpose. Its presence outside Aden was extremely helpful, but that was by chance, as it was on a voyage to Australasia. The right hon. Gentleman would not expect me to go into detail about possible contingency plans, but I take his point about the dangerous situation in the Lebanon. That is a matter of which we have been aware for a good many weeks.
Mr. Robert Adley: Everybody will deplore these dastardly deeds, but will my hon. Friend please understand that it is necessary sometimes to try to comprehend what is going on before one rushes into making decisions such as the Government made the day before yesterday? Does he agree that when my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister refers to state terrorism she aptly describes the acts of Israel in southern Lebanon? That is seen by almost all Arabs as a direct result of the policy of the United States in the middle east, with which we now, sadly, seem to be associated. Will my hon. Friend at least confirm that it remains the British Government's policy utterly to condemn this illegal invasion and occupation of Lebanese territory? Will he now recognise that the Government should be seeking, with our European
1028
partners, to restrain the United States from its one-sided policy in the middle east which has caused so many problems?
Mr. Renton: I would only make the point to my hon. Friend that in the course of yesterday's debate, virtually all of which I listened to, many hon. Members on both sides of the House said that the real solution to the problem of terrorism in the middle east lay in the solution of the Palestinian problem. I would not deny that that is the root cause, but it is the easiest thing in the world to say that. The difficulty is to find a solution. Successive Governments, United Nations organisations, the United States and many others have sought such a solution over recent years. King Hussein is in Britain at the moment, and doubtless that is one of the matters that he will be discussing with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, since it was her initiative, after discussions with King Hussein, which appeared to have a chance of taking us a step forward in meeting a joint Jordanian-Palestinian delegation last autumn. It is easy to say that that is the problem, but the difficulty, as all Governments have found, is to find the solution to the Palestinian question.
Mr. Frank Cook: I associate myself with the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), especially with his expressions of sympathy and condolence, in the same way as I associate myself with the Prime Minister's statement on Tuesday:
"Terrorism is a scourge of the modern age."—[Official Report, 15 April 1986; Vol. 95, c. 730.]
In fact, most people would agree that terrorism is an almost exquisite form of premeditated treachery. With that in mind, will the Minister give the House an assurance this afternoon that he will prevail upon the Prime Minister, who has not been present throughout these proceedings, to consult her friend the President of the United States to see whether she may be allowed to agree with me in stating that a terrorist is a terrorist, regardless of the insignia worn when committing the insane and bloody act?
Mr. Renton: I note what the hon. Gentleman says, and I fully agree with him in his wholehearted condemnation of terrorism, be it state-inspired or directed, wherever it occurs.
Mr. John Stokes: Is my hon. Friend aware that this afternoon in Westminster Abbey King Hussein of Jordan paid a moving tribute to the late Glubb Pasha? Cannot we somehow get back to those happier days when Englishmen knew and understood the Arab people so well? Surely there will be no peace in that part of the world unless a peace plan can somehow be started again, perhaps by the EEC Ministers.
Mr. Renton: I note what my hon. Friend said. I would have been at that memorial service had it not been necessary to prepare for this statement in the House on these tragic events. Thinking of Glubb Pasha does, of course, remind us of an era in the middle east when Britain was an extremely important protecting power. That day has gone for ever, but our interests in the middle east remain very strong. We never forget them.
Mr. Jack Ashley: Will the Minister accept that we have gone beyond the days of the late Glubb Pasha and are living in the 1980s? While all Members of the House of Commons will understand why he should make such an anodyne, apparently innocent and

1029
bland statement about the present situation, will he convey to the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State that they have made a disastrous error of judgment and should learn the lessons accordingly?
Mr. Renton: I do not think that the Prime Minister or the Foreign Secretary has made a disastrous error of judgement. Therefore, no, I will not convey that message.
Mr. Jonathan Aitken: Does my hon. Friend agree that, arising out of the current situation in Libya, we now may be at the beginning of a chain of consequences and events, some of which, sadly, may have tragic results for individuals, but some of which may yet result in the elimination of state-sponsored terrorism and therefore make the world safer for individuals?
Mr. Renton: Yes, I very much hope that the result which my hon. Friend sees as a possibility will come about.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Unfashionable though it may be these days, may I express a high regard for the quality of the senior officials of the Foreign Office? Did not those self-same officials warn Ministers specifically that if there was a military attack on Libya we might expect retribution in Beirut? Will he confirm that that specific warning was given by officials? Was that warning passed on by Ministers to Downing street, and did Downing street overrule the Foreign Office? Was that specific warning about Beirut taken into account? Is it not a case of Downing street thinking that it knows better than everybody else?
Mr. Renton: The hon. Gentleman has an infinite capacity for seeing plots that do not exist. It is not necessary for officials to warn Ministers about the position of hostages.
Mr. Dalyell rose—
Mr. Renton: I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that he listens and waits for a minute. I was in Damascus and in Beirut before Christmas. I spoke to Mr. Shara', Mr. Khaddam, Mr. Karami and other senior Ministers about Alec Collett and what could be done to secure his release. I did not need the advice of officials for that. So, quite clearly, when the decision was taken to support the United States in its measured attack on terrorist targets in Libya, one of the matters that was carefully taken into account was the implications to those who were being held hostage.
Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: Apart from Beirut, has it not been easily predictable since Monday that the lives of other British citizens would now be at risk elsewhere in the middle east? What are the Government doing about stepping up protection for them?
Mr. Renton: I have already said in answer to earlier questions that we have given instructions to our posts throughout the middle east to take particular security precautions. Notably, in regard to Libya and Lebanon, in the first category, Mr. Dunnachie, who is in charge of our British interests section, has been giving advice to the British community constantly for the last few days, and Mr. Gray, our ambassador in Beirut, has been doing that along the lines that I have already mentioned for a good many weeks now.
Mr. Greville Janner: Can the Minister tell the House rather more than he has about the bomb at terminal 1 at Heathrow airport this morning? In view of the continuing and awful series of airport and airline outrages, one more of which was, appparently, only averted today through the customary effort and courage of airline staff, is he consulting the British Air Line Pilots Association to see whether we can bring into force, by agreement, an arrangement that aircraft do not land in those countries which provide safe havens for terrorists and murderers?
Mr. Renton: I cannot say any more at the moment about the bomb at Heathrow terminal 1. Police inquiries are at an early stage, and it would not be appropriate for me to comment further. Of course, it is my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary who will in due course answer further questions about the bomb.
We have not received any representations from, for example, the International Federation of Airline Pilots Associations, but if it makes such representations as the hon. and learned Gentleman has suggested, the appropriate Department will consider them very carefully indeed.
Mr. Bill Walker: Does my hon. Friend agree that the kidnapping and murder of people in the middle east is not a recent phenomenon? Many of us remember the situation that existed in the late 1940s when this was going on, and it has been going on ever since. Will my hon. Friend confirm that the military action taken earlier this week is not the first instance of military action being taken in the middle east? Any student of middle east history knows that air forces, including the Royal Air Force, have been engaged extensively in the middle east in operations of this kind?
Mr. Renton: I take my hon. Friend's point, and he is of course right in saying that terrorist activities are nothing new. Specifically in regard to Libyan terrorist activities, this country has been suffering from them ever since 1979; for instance, in March 1980, when a Libyan journalist was shot in Regent's park. The whole House should agree that, despite the tragic circumstances that I have had to announce today, if the Government refrained from taking what they believe to be the correct action, because they were frightened of reprisals by terrorists or kidnappers, they would be giving in to blackmail by criminals. I cannot believe that that is a course of action that the House would want the Government to follow.
Mr. Michael Foot: Is it not evident from the hon. Gentleman's replies to the questions that have been put to him that these are not departmental answers? It is impossible for his Department to be responsible for these replies. If, tragically, this intensification of terrorist action continues over the coming days, will the Government make sure that the person who comes to the House to answer for these matters is the Prime Minister, who is primarily responsible?
Mr. Renton: I cannot say that I fully understand the right hon. Gentleman's question. Responsibility for the middle east is specifically mine within the Foreign Office, and it is therefore totally appropriate that I should have come here this afternoon to make a statement about developments in the Lebanon today.
Mr. Andrew MacKay: On this occasion, when, quite rightly, the whole House is condemning savage murders, would it not be right for us to make it absolutely clear also that the more that terrorist activities take place, the stronger will be our resolve throughout this House? Should we not also point out that we have been at the sharp end as victims of terrorism in this country and abroad for a long time before Monday night's bombing of Tripoli?
Mr. Renton: I fully agree with my hon. Friend, and I have no doubt that, despite these tragic events, hon. Members, certainly on the Government Benches, are determined that there shall be no compromise and no trading with terrorists.
Mr. Robert Maclennan: Does the Minister accept that his earlier explanation of the discussions in Paris today reveals a disturbing lack of urgency, and that his reference to more effective measures against terrorism in the months ahead being planned by European Foreign Ministers will not reassure people in this country that the Government are committed to effective measures other than the use of force? Will the Minister report the decisions of principle, if any, which were taken today in Paris which carry the discussion beyond the communiqué issued on Monday?
Mr. Renton: Although I understand the reasons for it, the hon. Member will have to restrain his impatience for a few more days. Today's meeting of the Foreign Ministers was only an interim meeting, at which once again the need was accepted for further urgent measures both to suppress terrorism in Europe and to recruit wider international support from friendly and moderate countries to stop state terrorism. A full meeting of the Foreign Affairs Council will take place on 21 April. It is from that meeting that the hon. Gentleman should expect to hear an announcement, in the communiqué, of what decisions have been taken.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I must have regard to the business before the House today. I shall allow questions to go on for a further 10 minutes, but then we must move on. I hope the House will agree that I should give preference to those right hon. and hon. Members who did not take part in yesterday's debate and who were not called on previous statements.
Sir Paul Hawkins: Does my hon. Friend know that when I went through Heathrow airport last Saturday there was no passport control on any El A1 aeroplanes? I was travelling on a British aeroplane, and I was told that because an El A1 flight was taking place that day the passport controllers had refused to work.
Mr. Renton: I note what my hon. Friend says, and it is certainly a matter of concern. I shall see that it is passed on to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who has responsibility for passport matters.
Mr. Tony Banks: On what basis does the Minister justify his statement that in supporting the United States attack on Libya Britain was acting in support of the international community? Will he please name the countries which have indicated to Her Majesty's Government their support for the United States' attack on Libya and Britain's support for that attack?
Mr. Renton: The hon. Gentleman would do better if he listened more closely. I said that the United States, with our support in one specific area, was acting on behalf of all those in the international community who have suffered from international terrorism. That is of course right. Libyan terrorism threatens not just the United States and the United Kingdom, but a number of the surrounding Arab countries, and this action should be considered to have been taken on behalf of all of those countries.
Mr. Douglas Hogg: Will my hon. Friend confirm that urgent steps will be taken to find out whether the Libyan Government are in any way responsible either for the three murders in the Lebanon or for the bomb at terminal 1 at Heathrow? If there is a connection, will my hon. Friend ensure that that fact is clearly announced to the world and, to the extent possible, ensure that the evidence is revealed?
Mr. Renton: I note with great care what my hon. Friend said. There is always a problem about revealing specific sources when one finds out the details of who is responsible for terrorist attacks and for kidnappings. However, I listened to what my hon. Friend said, and I shall bear his comments in mind.
Mr. Ron Leighton: Do the Government understand what every schoolchild could have told them—that by acting as a puppet of the Americans they have placed in danger the lives of countless innocent British citizens? Do they understand that the responsibility for their blood is now on their hands?
Mr. Renton: I find the hon. Gentleman's comments cheap, unpleasant and time-serving. I should like to make the point to him that the price for resisting terrorism is never cheap. We never thought that it would be cheap, and no intelligent person should think that it will be cheap. But we cannot combat terrorism by side-stepping it. If we try to side-step it, the eventual price is likely to be greater than if we had resisted the terrorism from the beginning.
Mr. Ernie Ross: The Minister knows that at least two of the people who may have been victims of this terrorist action worked and lived not in west Beirut but in east Beirut. The university is in west Beirut. The Minister also knows that the majority of British subjects who are now living in Beirut wish to remain there, as do the British subjects in every other Arab country. They are looking to this Government, not for their support for action against Arab Governments, but for an initiative that will resolve the problem in the middle east. That is the Palestinian problem. Will the Minister confirm that his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister intends to go ahead with her visit to Israel, and is he able to say what initiative she will take to Israel in an effort to settle the Palestinian problem?
Mr. Renton: I listened very carefully to the hon. Gentleman's question, and I realise that he appreciates the difficulties. However, I would make the point to him that it is not just a question of the Palestinian problem, to which I have already referred. The inter-communal problems in the Lebanon between different types of Moslems and between the Moslems and the Christians go back many centuries. These problems are at the heart of so many of the difficulties around Beirut. It was for this reason that Syria brought forward the joint tripartite draft agreement,

1033
to try to find agreement between the communities around Beirut for a peaceful settlement. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is certainly proposing to go ahead with her visit to Israel. I have no doubt that she will take some thoughts with her for discussion with Mr. Peres about how the Arab-Israel peace process can be moved forward.
Mr. Max Madden: Does the Minister accept that there can be no prospect of peace in the middle east, and certainly no real reduction in terrorism, unless the Palestinians secure a homeland? Does he also accept that the influence which Britain and America could have exerted to that end has been considerably reduced by the insane attack upon Libya by the Americans, with the support of this Government?
Does he also accept that, because of this insane adventure, we have made British citizens in many countries in the middle east targets for terrorism? Will he give a clear undertaking that British bases will never again be used by the Americans or by anybody else to undertake mad adventures of this sort?
Mr. Renton: The hon. Gentleman's determination to introduce extravagant words like "insane adventure" causes him to lose sight of the point that he made at the beginning of his question, which was about the Palestinian problem and the Palestinians' right to a homeland. We have always supported the Palestinians' right to self-determination. We take a foreign policy view about this question which is quite different from that of the United States. It was against that background that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister suggested during her visit last autumn to Jordan that a joint Palestinian delegation should come here. It is a pity that that initiative did not work out, but we always remain willing to look at other ideas for bringing reputable Palestinians, as representatives of the Palestinian people, into the peace process.
Mr. Harry Ewing: The Minister of State keeps saying that the Government's policy must not be dictated by the fear of reprisals. What will he say if, tragically, it is shown that some of the people who have now been found dead had been held hostage for a very long period? Does he accept that it was the Government's support of the American action that brought about the killings? No doubt their lives were always in danger while they were held hostage, but was it not the Government's support for the American action that brought about the tragic killing of those who had been held hostage for so long?
Mr. Renton: I listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman. I know him to be a thinking and careful person. I should only like to send back the thought to him that we had the position of our hostages very much in mind. However, if any Government refrain from taking what they believe to be correct action through fear for their hostages, they are allowing their hands to be tied by terrorists and criminal kidnappers and are giving in to blackmail by terrorists and kidnappers. That is something that we have always said we would not do.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Does the Minister accept no responsibility for the loss of the hostages' lives?
Mr. Renton: I think that that is a foolish question.
Mr. Tony Marlow: Will my hon. Friend accept that, whatever was said yesterday by two ex-Prime Ministers and an ex-Foreign Secretary, given the circumstances in which the Government found themselves, and whatever misgivings they had, given the fact that the European Community turned its back on the Americans, there was no alternative for a British Prime Minister but to agree to the use of our bases and, had they been Prime Minister or Foreign Secretary, no doubt they would have made the same decision?
Mr. Renton: If my hon. Friend is referring to the Opposition, I am not at all certain that they would have made the same decision, because I am not certain that it is in their character to take determined decisions to stand up against terrorism. That apart, I agree with my hon. Friend's remark.
Mr. Andrew Faulds: In acquiescing in the American President's demands for the use of British bases, which was in clear contravention of the spirit and understanding of the original agreement on these bases, did the Prime Minister contemplate the inevitability of these British deaths, and others which will follow, and the inevitability of the Libyan civilian casualties as well?
Mr. Renton: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. He is trying to repeat some of yesterday's debate. It is clear that the agreement of the Prime Minister and of the Government was not in contravention of the original Attlee-Truman agreement. I do not agree with his comments, and I repeat that it would be wrong if the Government allowed their decisions to be dictated by fear of what terrorists or criminal kidnappers might do.
Sir Eldon Griffiths: In the weeks and months before these bodies were discovered, and well before the American air strike, is it not the case that evidence was building up in Beirut—circumstantial perhaps—to link the abductions of these British citizens to the policies and agencies of the Government of Libya?
Mr. Renton: I hope my hon. Friend will not mind if I do not go into further detail this afternoon. I do not wish to say anything that might affect the safety of those who are held hostage—[AN HON. MEMBER: "Tell the Truth."] I assure the House that it is not a question of telling the truth. It is a question of the safety of those who are being held hostage in the Lebanon. For that reason, I shall not go into further detail.
Mr. Anderson: Has not the Minister, in his bland statement today, failed to recognise that the situation has changed fundamentally because of the attack and that British citizens everywhere are now vulnerable to terrorism? In the light of that, what is his advice to British subjects in west Beirut? Is it to stay, or to leave? If it is to leave, how do they do so? Has the hon. Gentleman not today confirmed that negotiations which were under way with the Syrian Government about the release of our citizens have been totally undermined by this invasion and that our Government have abandoned those citizens to their fate? If we are not to be dictated to by fear of reprisals, what possible ground can there be for thinking that Colonel Gaddafi and his apparently less rational Government will be dictated to by the fear of reprisals?
Mr. Renton: Our advice for many years now has been not to go into Beirut, or to other parts of the Lebanon, which are every bit as dangerous as west Beirut. We have

1035
today instructed our ambassador in Beirut to give us his further opinion on what additional instructions, if any, should be given. The situation in the Lebanon has been in turmoil for many months, as anyone who has been there recently will know. We have been in discussion with many Governments in the middle east the Syrian Government included, for weeks about our citizens who are held hostage. We in this country have been in the front line of terrorism for many years, not least since the killing of Policewoman Fletcher two years ago. There is nothing new about this situation.

BILLS PRESENTED
  BRITISH SHIPBUILDERS (BORROWING POWERS)
  Mr. Secretary Channon, supported by Mr. Secretary Ridley, Mr. Kenneth Clarke, Mr. Secretary Rifkind, Mr. John Moore and Mr. Peter Morrison, presented (under Standing Order No. 111 (Procedure upon Bills whose main object is to create a charge upon the public revenue)) a Bill to raise the limits imposed by section 11 of the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Act 1977 in relation to the finances of British Shipbuilders and its wholly owned subsidiaries: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 136.]
  CHANNEL TUNNEL
  Mr. Secretary Ridley, supported by the Prime Minister, Secretary Sir Geoffrey Howe, Mr. Norman Tebbit, Mr. Secretary Baker, Mr. Secretary Channon, Mr. John Moore and Mr. David Mitchell, presented a Bill to provide for the construction and operation of a railway tunnel system under the English Channel, together with associated works; to provide for connected improvements in the road network near Ashford, in Kent, and in the rail network in South Eastern England; to incorporate part of the railway tunnel system into the United Kingdom and to provide for the application and enforcement of law in relation to, and otherwise for the regulation of, that system and matters connected with it; to provide for the construction of certain highways and associated works in the vicinity of Folkestone; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 137.]
Orders of the Day
  Agriculture Bill
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  Agriculture Bill
    New Clause 4

      COMPENSATION TO OUTGOING TENANTS FOR MILK QUOTA
      `(1) Schedule [Tenants' compensation for milk quota] to this Act shall have effect in connection with the payment to certain agricultural tenants on the termination of their tenancies of compensation in respect of milk quota (within the meaning of that Schedule).
      (2) On a reference under section 12 of the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 (arbitration of rent) the arbitrator shall disregard any rights the tenant may have under that Schedule.'.—[Mr. Jopling.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      5.5 pm
      The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Michael Jopling): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient also to discuss the following: New clause 6—Apportionment of value of milk quotas between landlords and tenants—
      `(1) Subject to the provisions of this section the landlord or tenant of an agricultural holding may by notice in writing served on his tenant or landlord at any time during the continuance of the tenancy or before the expiration of two months from the termination of the tenancy demand a reference to arbitration under the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 of the question of what proportion of the value of the quota on the holding is attributable to the landlord and tenant respectively.
      (2) No such reference as is referred to in subsection (1) above shall be possible unless the landlord or the tenant of the holding has requested his tenant or landlord to enter into an agreement as to their respective proportions of the value of the quota on the holding but no such agreement has been concluded.
      (3) On a reference under sub section (1) above the arbitrator shall determine what proportion of the value of the quota available on the holding at the date of arbitration is attributable to each party according to his respective contribution to the establishment of quota allocated by the Minister.
      (4) In making his determination under subsection (3) above the arbitrator shall have regard only to the period prior to the allocation of quota by the Minister.
      (5) For the purposes of subsection (3) above the value of any quota brought on to the holding by whatever means other than quota allocated by the Minister shall be attributed to the party who acquired it and shall not be apportioned by the arbitrator.
      (6)(a) For the purposes of subsection (3) above and subject to paragraphs (b) and (c) below, in determining the respective contributions of the landlord and tenant to the establishment of quota on the holding the arbitrator shall take into account the quality of land used for dairying, if relevant, and the contributions of each party to any land improvements specific to dairying, the dairy buildings, their appurtenances and plant, the dairying equipment and machinery, and the provision of the dairy herd, feed, labour and management.
      (b) In making his determination under sub section (3) above the arbitrator shall not attach undue weight to any one of the factors contributed by the landlord or tenant but shall endeavour to achieve a reasonable balance between all factors taken into account.
      (c) In any case where the landlord has provided all the dairy buildings, and their appurtenances and plant, land and land improvements specific to dairying, and the tenant has provided all the dairying equipment and machinery, the dairy herd and management of it, the

      1037
      quota value shall be apportioned equally between the landlord and the tenant and the arbitrator shall have regard to this principle in making his determination under subsection (3) above.
      (7) The tenant shall be entitled on the termination of the tenancy, on quitting the holding, to obtain from his landlord compensation for that portion of the value of the quota on the holding which:—

      (a) the parties agree is attributable to the tenant; or

      (b) in the absence of agreement between the parties is determined by an arbitrator under sub-section (3) above to be attributable to the tenant.

      (8) The value of quota to be taken into account for the purposes of sub-section (7) above is the value of the quota at the time of the termination of the tenancy in question and in determining that value there shall be taken into account such evidence as is available, including evidence as to sums being paid for freehold and leasehold interests in land and in respect of grazing licences for periods of less than one year:—

      (a) in cases where quota is registered in relation to the land; and

      (b) in cases where no quota is so registered.

      (9) Where the parties fail to agree the value of the quota to be taken into account under sub-section (8) above such value shall be determined by arbitration under the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986.
      (10) In this section "dairy buildings, their appurtenances and plant" shall include any buildings used for cow housing and other dairying purposes and includes parlours, dairies, silage pits, feed stores, slurry stores, collecting yards and any associated yards, and other relevant constructions of whatsoever nature; "dairying equipment and machinery" shall include the milking equipment and parlour fittings, bulk milk tanks and associated equipment, cubicle divisions, equipment used in connection with the dairy herd for forage harvesting, feeding and the disposal of slurry, and other relevant equipment of whatsoever nature; "Minister" means—

      (a) in the case of land in England, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and

      (b) in the case of land in Wales, the Secretary of State; "quota" means direct sales quota or wholesale quota as defined in the Dairy Produce Quotas Regulations 1986; and "quota allocated by the Minister" means any quota allocated by the Minister under the Dairy Produce Quotas Regulations 1984, the Dairy Produce Quotas (Amendment) Regulations 1985 and the Dairy Produce Quotas Regulations 1986.'.

      Amendment (a) thereto, in paragraph 1(10)(b) after second 'in', insert 'Scotland and'
      Government amendments Nos 25 to 27 and 29.
      Government amendment No 30—Schedule—

    TENANTS' COMPENSATION FOR MILK QUOTA PART I

      RIGHT TO COMPENSATION
      Tenants' right to compensation
      1.—(1) Subject to the following provisions of this Schedule, where on the termination of the tenancy of any land the tenant has milk quota registered as his in relation to a holding consisting of or including the land, the tenant shall be entitled, on quitting the land, to obtain from his landlord a payment—

      (a) if the tenant had milk quota allocated to him in relation to land comprised in the holding ("allocated quota") in respect of so much of the relevant quota as consists of allocated quota; and

      (b) if the tenant had milk quota allocated to him as aforesaid or was in occupation of the land as a tenant on 2nd April 1984 (whether or not under the tenancy which is terminating), in respect of so much of the relevant quota as consists of transferred quota transferred to him by virtue of a transaction the cost of which was borne wholly or partly by him.

      (2) In sub-paragraph (1) above—
      "the relevant quota" means—

      (a) in a case where the holding mentioned in subsection (1) above consists only of the land subject to the tenancy, the milk quota registered in relation to the holding; and

      1038

      (b) otherwise, such part of that milk quota as falls to be apportioned to that land on the termination of the tenancy;

      "transferred quota" means milk quota transferred to the tenant by virtue of the transfer to him of the whole or part of a holding.
      (3) A tenant shall not be entitled to more than one payment under this paragraph in respect of the same land.
      Succession on death or retirement of tenant
      2.—(1) This paragraph applies where on the termination of the tenancy of any land after 2nd April 1984 a new tenancy of the land or part of the land has been granted to a different tenant ("the new tenant") and that tenancy—

      (a) was obtained by virtue of a direction under section 39 or 53 of the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 (direction for grant of tenancy to successor on death or retirement of previous tenant);

      (b) was granted (following a direction under section 39 of that Act) in circumstances within section 45(6) of that Act (new tenancy granted by agreement to persons entitled to tenancy under direction); or

      (c) is such a tenancy as is mentioned in section 37(1) (b) or (2) of that Act (tenancy granted by agreement to close relative).

      (2) Where this paragraph applies—

      (a) any milk quota allocated or transferred to the former tenant (or treated as having been allocated or transferred to him) in respect of the land which is subject to the new tenancy shall be treated as if it had been allocated or transferred to the new tenant; and

      (b) in a case where milk quota is treated under paragraph (a) above as having been transferred to the new tenant, he shall be treated as if he had paid so much of the cost of the transaction by virtue of which the milk quota was transferred as the former tenant bore (or is treated as having borne).

      (3) Sub-paragraph (1) above applies in relation to the grant of a new tenancy before the date on which the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 comes into force as if the references in that sub-paragraph to section 39, 53 and 45(6) of that Act were references to section 20 of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976, paragraph 5 of Shedule 2 to the Agricultural Holdings Act 1984 and section 23(6) of the said Act of 1976 respectively.
      Assignments
      3. Where the tenancy of any land has been assigned after 2nd April 1984 (whether by deed or by operation of law)—

      (a) any milk quota allocated or transferred to the assignor (or treated as having been allocated or transferred to him) in respect of the land shall be treated as if it had been allocatd or transferred to the assignee; and

      (b) in a case where milk quota is treated under paragraph (a) above as having been transferred to the assignee, he shall be treated as if he had paid so much of the cost of the transaction by virtue of which the milk quota was transferred as the assignor bore (or is treated as having borne);

      and accordingly the assignor shall not be entitled to a payment under paragraph 1 above in respect of that land.
      Sub-tenancies
      4. Where the sub-tenancy of any land terminates after 2nd April 1984 then, for the purposes of determining the sub-landlord's entitlement under paragraph 1 above—

      (a) any milk quota allocated or transferred to the subtenant (or treated as having been allocated or transferred to him) in respect of the land shall be treated as if it had been allocated or transferred to the sub-landlard;

      (b) in a case where milk quota is treated under paragraph (a) above as having been transferred to the sub-landlord, he shall be treated as if he had paid so much of the cost of the transaction by virtue of which the milk quota was transferred as the sub-tenant bore (or is treated as having borne): and

      1039

      (c) if the sub-landlord does not occupy the land after the sub-tenancy has ended and the sub-tenant has quitted the land, the sub-landlord shall be taken to have quitted the land when the sub-tenant quitted it.

    PART II

      AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION PAYABLE
      Calculation of payment
      5.—(1) The amount of the payment to which the tenant of any land is entitled under paragraph 1 above on the termination of his tenancy shall be determined in accordance with the following provisions of this paragraph.
      (2) The amount of the payment to which the tenant is entitled under paragraph 1 above in respect of allocated quota shall be an amount equal—

      (a) in a case where the allocated quota exceeds the standard quota for the land, to the value of the sum of—

      (i) the tenant's fraction of the standard quota, and

      (ii) the amount of the excess;

      (b) in a case where the allocated quota is equal to the standard quota, to the value of the tenant's fraction of the allocated quota; and

      (c) in a case where the allocated quota is less than the standard quota, to the value of such proportion of the tenant's fraction of the allocated quota as the allocated quota bears to the standard quota.

      (3) The amount of the payment the tenant is entitled to under paragraph 1 above in respect of the transferred quota shall he an amount equal—

      (a) in a case where the tenant bore the whole of the cost of the transaction by virtue of which the transferred quota was transferred to him, to the value of the transferred quota; and

      (b) in a case where the tenant bore only part of that cost, to the value of the corresponding part of the transferred quota.

      "Standard quota"
      6.—(1) Subject to the following provisions of this paragraph, the standard quota for any land for the purposes of this Schedule shall be taken to be the number of litres of cow's milk which could reasonably be expected to have been produced from the land in a period of 12 months.
      (2) the number mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) above shall be calculated—

      (a) by reference to the average number of hectares of the land used during the relevant period for the feeding of dairy cows kept on the land; and

      (b) on the assumption that the amount of milk produced from one hectare of land in a period of 12 months is such amount as the Minister may by order prescribe.

      (3) An order under sub-paragraph (2) above may make different provision for different cases.
      (4) Where—

      (a) the average number of hectares of the land in question which could reasonably be expected to have been used during the relevant period for the feeding of dairy cows kept on the land (having regard to the number of grazing animals other than dairy cows fed from the land during that period) is substantially greater or less than the average number referred to in sub-paragraph (2)(a) above; or

      (b) the amount of milk which could reasonably be expected to have been produced from one hectare of the land in question during the relevant period is substantially greater or less than the amount prescribed under sub-paragraph (2)(b) above,

      then that number or, as the case may be, amount shall be adjusted accordingly.
      (5) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) above a number or amount shall be taken to be substantially greater or less than another only if it exceeds, or, as the case may be, falls short of that other by an amount equal to or greater than 20 per cent. of that other.
      (6) The power to make an order under this paragraph shall be exercisable by statutory instrument and any statutory instrument containing such an order shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
      (7) In this paragraph references to the feeding of animals are to grazing and feeding from harvested crops (other than loose grain) and references to dairy cows are to cows kept for milk production.
      "Tenant' s fraction"
      7.—(1) For the purposes of this Schedule "the tenant's fraction" means the fraction of which—

      (a) the numerator is the annual rental value at the end of the relevant period of the tenant's dairy improvements and fixed equipment; and

      (b) the denominator is the sum of that value and such part of the rent payable by the tenant in respect of the relevant period as is attributable to the land used in that period in connection with the production of cow's milk.

      (2) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1)(a) above the rental value of the tenant's dairy improvements and fixed equipment shall be taken to be the amount which would fall to be disregarded under paragraph 2(1) of Schedule 2 to the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 on a reference made in respect of the land in question under section 12 of that Act (arbitration of rent), so far as that amount is attributable to tenant's improvements or tenant's fixed equipment which are relevant to the production of cow's milk.
      (3) Where—

      (a) the relevant period is less than or greater than 12 months or

      (b) rent was only payable by the tenant in respect of part of the relevant period.,

      the average rent payable in respect of one month in the relevant period or, as the case may be, in that part shall be determined and the rent referred to in sub-paragraph (1)(b) above shall be taken to be the corresponding annual amount.
      (4) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) above "tenant's improvements" and "tenant's fixed equipment" have the same meanings as in paragraph 2 of Schedule 2 to the 1986 Act, except that—

      (a) any allowance made or benefit given by the landlord after the end of the relevant period in consideration of the execution of improvements wholly or partly at the expense of the tenant shall be disregarded for the purposes of sub-paragraph (2)(a) of that paragraph;

      (b) any compensation received by the tenant after the end of the relevant period in respect of any improvement or fixed equipment shall be disregarded for the purposes of sub-paragraph (3) of that paragraph; and

      (c) where paragraph 2 above applies in respect of any land, improvements or equipment which would be regarded as tenant's improvements or equipment on the termination of the former tenant's tenancy (if he were entitled to a payment under this Schedule in respect of that land) shall be regarded as the new tenant's improvements or equipment.

      "Relevant period"
      8. In this Schedule "the relevant period" means—

      (a) the period in relation to which the allocated quota was determined; or

      (b) where it was determined in relation to more than one period, the period in relation to which the majority was determined or, if equal amounts were determined in relation to different periods, the later of those periods.

      Valuation of milk quota
      9. The value of milk quota to be taken into account for the purposes of paragraph 5 above is the value of the milk quota at the time of the termination of the tenancy in question and in determining that value at that lime there shall be taken into account such evidence as is avaialble, including evidence as to the sums being paid for freehold and leasehold interests in land—

      (a) in cases where milk quota is registered in relation to the land; and

      (b) in cases where no milk quota is so registered.

    PART III

      SUPPLEMENTAL PROVISIONS
      Determination of standard quota and tenant's fraction before end of tenancy
      10.—(1) Where, on the termination of a tenancy of any

      1041
      land, the tenant may be entitled to a payment under paragraph 1 above, the landlord or tenant may at any time before the termination of the tenancy by notice in writing served on the other demand that the determination of the standard quota for the land or the tenant's fraction shall be referred to arbitration.
      (2) On a reference under this paragraph the arbitrator shall determine the standard quota for the land or, as the case may be, the tenant's fraction (so far as determinable at the date of the reference).
      (3) Section 84 of the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 (arbitrations) shall apply as if the matters mentioned in this paragraph were required by that Act to be determined by arbitration under that Act.
      Settlement of tenant's claim on termination of tenancy
      11.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this paragraph, any claim arising under paragraph 1 above shall be determined by arbitration under the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 and no such claim shall be enforceable unless before the expiry of the period of two months from the termination of the tenancy the tenant serves notice in writing on his landlord of his intention to make the claim.
      (2) The landlord and tenant may within the period of eight months from the termination of the tenancy by agreement in writing settle the claim but where the claim has not been settled during that period it shall be determined by arbitration under the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986.
      (3) Where a tenant lawfully remains in occupation of part of the land subject to the tenancy after the termination of the tenancy, the references in sub-paragraphs (1) and (2) above to the termination of the tenancy shall be construed as references to the termination of the occupation.
      (4) Section 84 of the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 (arbitrations) shall apply as if the requirements of this paragaphah were requirements of that Act, but paragraph 18 of Schedule 11 to that Act (arbitration awards to fix days for payment not later than one month after award) shall have effect for the purposes of this paragraph as if for the words "one month" there were substituted the words "three months".
      (5) Where—

      (a) before the termination of the tenancy of any land the landlord and tenant have agreed in writing the amount of the standard quota for the land or the tenant's fraction or the value of milk quota which is to be used for the purpose of calculating the payment to which the tenant will be entitled under this Schedule on the termination of the tenancy; or

      (b) the standard quota or the tenant's fraction has been determined by arbitration in pursuance of paragraph 10 above,

      the arbitrator determining the claim under this paragraph shall, subject to sub-paragraph (6) below, award payment in accordance with that agreement or determination.
      (6) Where it appears to the arbitrator that any circumstances relevant to the agreement or determination mentioned in sub-paragraph (5) above were materially different at the time of the termination of the tenancy from those at the time the agreement or determination was made, he shall disregard so much of the agreement or determination as appears to him to be affected by the change in circumstances.
      Enforcement
      12.—Section 85 of the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 (enforcement) and section 86(1), (3) and (4) of that Act (power of landlord to obtain charge on holding) shall apply to any sum which becomes due to a tenant by virtue of this Schedule as they apply to the sums mentioned in those sections.
      Termination of tenancy of part of tenanted land
      13.—References in this Schedule to the termination of a tenacy of land include references to the resumption of possession of part of the land subject to the tenancy—

      (a) by the landlord by virtue of section 31 or 43(2) of the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 (notice to quit part);

      (b) by the landlord in pursuance of a provision in the contract of tenancy; or

      (c) by a person entitled to a severed part of the reversionary estate in the land by virtue of a notice to
      1042
      quit that part given to the tenant by virtue of section 140 of the Law of Property Act 1925;

      and in the case mentioned in paragraph (c) above this Schedule shall apply as if the person resuming possession were the landlord of the land of which he resumes possession.
      Severing of reversionary estate
      14.—(1) Where the reversionary estate in the land is for the time being vested in more than one person in several parts, the tenant shall be entitled, on quitting all the land, to require that any amount payable to him under this Schedule shall be determined as if the reversionary estate were not so severed.
      (2) Where sub-paragraph (1) above applies, the arbitrator shall, where necessary, apportion the amount awarded between the persons who for the purposes of this Schedule together constitute the landlord of the land, and any additional costs of the award, caused by the apportionment shall be paid by those persons in such proportions as the arbitrator may determine.
      Powers of limited owners
      15. Notwithstanding that a landlord of any land is not the owner in fee simple of the land or, in a case where his interest is an interest in a leasehold, that he is not absolutely entitled to the leasehold, he may for the purposes of this Schedule do anything which he might do if he were such an owner or, as the case may be, were so entitled.
      Notices
      16.—(1) Any notice under this Schedule shall be duly served on the person on whom it is to be served if it is delivered to him, or left at his proper address, or sent to him by post in a registered letter or by the recorded delivery service.
      (2) Any such notice shall be duly served on an incorporated company or body if it is served on the secretary or clerk of the company or body.
      (3) Any such notice to be served on a landlord or tenant of any land shall, where an agent or servant is responsible for the control of the management or farming, as the case may be, of the land, be duly served if served on that agent or servant.
      (4) For the purposes of this paragraph and of section 7 of the Interpretation Act 1978 (service by post), the proper address of any person on whom any such notice is to be served shall, in the case of the secretary or clerk of an incorporated company or body, be that of the registered or principal office of the company or body, and in any other case be the last known address of the person in question.
      (5) Unless or until the tenant of any land has received—

      (a) notice that the person who before that time was entitled to receive the rents and profits of the land ("the original landlord") has ceased to be so entitled, and

      (b) notice of the name and address of the person who has become entitled to receive the rents and profits,

      any notice served on the original landlord by the tenant shall be deemed for the purposes of this Schedule to have been served on the landlord of the land.

      Crown land
      17.—(1) The provisions of this Schedule shall apply to land which belongs to Her Majesty in right of the Crown or to the Duchy of Lancaster, the Duchy of Cornwall or a Government department or which is held in trust for Her Majesty for the purposes of a Government department, subject in each case to such modifications as the Minister may by regulations prescribe.
      (2) For the purposes of this Schedule—

      (a) as respects land belonging to Her Majesty in right of the Crown, the Crown Estate Commissioners or the proper officer of body having charge of the land for the time being, or, if there is no such officer or body, such person as Her Majesty may appoint in writing under the Royal Sign Manual, shall represent Her Majesty and shall be deemed to be the landlord;

      (b) as respects land belonging to Her Majesty in right of the Duchy of Lancaster, the Chancellor of the Duchy shall represent Her Majesty and shall be deemed to be the landlord;

      (c) as respects land belonging to the Duchy of Cornwall such persons as the Duke of Cornwall or the possessor for the time being of the Duchy of Cornwall appoints

      1043
      shall represent the Duchy and shall be deemed to be the landlord and may do any act or thing which a landlord is authorised or required to do under this Act;

      (d) as respects land held in trust for Her Majesty for the purposes of a Government department, that department shall represent Her Majesty and shall be deemed to be the landlord.

      (3) Any sum payable under this schedule by the Duke of Cornwall (or any other possessor for the time being of the Duchy of Cornwall) may be raised and paid as if it were an expense incurred in permanently improving the possessions of the Duchy as mentioned in section 8 of the Duchy of Cornwall Management Act 1863.
      (4) Any sum payable under this Schedule by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster may—

      (a) be raised and paid as if it were an expense incurred in the improvement of land belonging to Her Majesty in right of the Duchy within section 25 of the Duchy of Lancaster Act 1817, or

      (b) be paid out of the annual revenue of the Duchy.

      (5) The power to make regulations under this paragraph shall be exercisable by statutory instrument and any statutory instrument containing such regulations shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
      Interpretation
      18.—(1) In this Schedule—

      "allocated quota" has the meaning given in paragraph 1(1) above;

      "holding" has the same meaning as in the 1986 Regulations;

      "landlord" means any person for the time being entitled to receive the rents and profits of any land and "sub-landlord" shall be construed accordingly;

      "milk quota" means—

      (a) in the case of a tenant registered in the direct sales register maintained under the 1986 Regulations, a direct sales quota within the meaning of the 1986 Regulations, and

      (b) in the case of a tenant registered in the wholesale register maintained under those Regulations, a wholesale quota within the meaning of those Regulations;

      "the Minister" means—

      (a) in the case of land in England, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food; and

      (b) in the case of land in Wales, the Secretary of State;

      "registered", in relation to milk quota, means—

      (a) in the case of direct sales quota, within the meaning of the 1986 Regulations, registered in the direct sales register maintained under those Regulations, and

      (b) in the case of a wholesale quota, within the meaning of those Regulations, registered in a wholesale register maintained under those Regulations;

      "relevant quota" has the meaning given in paragraph 1(2) above;

      "standard quota" has the meaning given in paragraph 6 above;

      "the 1986 Regulations" means the Dairy Produce Quotas Regulations 1986;

      "tenancy" means a tenancy from year to year or a tenancy to which section 3 of the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 applies, and "tenant" and "sub-tenant" shall be construed accordingly;

      "tenant's fraction" has the meaning given in paragraph 7 above;

      "termination", in relation to a tenancy, means the cesser of the letting of the land in question or the agreement for letting the land, by reason of effluxion of time from any other cause;

      "transferred quota" has the meaning given in paragraph 1(2) above.

      (2) The designations of landlord and tenant shall continue to apply to the parties until the conclusion of any proceedings taken under or in pursuance of this Schedule.'.
      The following amendments thereto:

      (a), in paragraph 1(3) leave out 'A tenant shall not be entitled to' and insert 'Not'.

      1044

      (b), in paragraph 1(3) after 'paragraph', insert 'shall be made'.

      (c), in paragraph 7(2) leave out 'relevant' and insert 'specific'.

      It may be convenient if I say that I have been asked about the first group of amendments headed by the Minister's new clause 4. If that new clause is agreed to by the House, new clause 6 standing in the name of the hon. Member for Cornwall, South-East (Mr. Hicks) will fall, and it will not be possible for a vote to be taken upon it.
      We have followed the normal practice of not printing more than the first six names of hon. Members who have signed a new clause or an amendment. That practice was followed in the case of the hon. Member's new clause 6, but I confirm to him and the House that his new clause has been signed by a total of 26 hon. Members.
      Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: I am most grateful for that statement, Mr. Speaker, because there is a wide body of opinion in all parts of the House which wishes to have the opportunity of voting for the official National Farmers Union new clause, which is new clause 6. Your statement means that if they wish to do so, they will have to negative new clause 4. Can you further tell the House whether, if new clause 4 is carried, there will be the opportunity to have a separate vote on the Government's new schedule? Although the implication of new clause 4 is apparently to accept the schedule, which is why new clause 6 would fall, nevertheless, many hon. Members would wish for the opportunity of a separate vote on the Government's new schedule.
      Mr. Speaker: The question will have to be put on the Government's new schedule, and there will be an opportunity, if Members object to it, to vote upon it.
      Mr. Tony Baldry: When last a major agriculture debate was held in the House it was the view of the Government at that stage that it was a matter for the National Farmers Union and the Country Landowners Association to see whether they could come to some agreement on tenancies. The first that any hon. Member knew that that view had been changed was in an answer to a written question in Hansard on Friday.
      This new schedule is extremely complex and lengthy. Has there been adequate time for hon. Members to consider it as it has not been considered in Committee? After all, it should be properly and fairly debated this afternoon. Having regard to the weight of work on the House this week, hon. Members have not had adequate time to apply their minds to it and the provision affects the livelihood of many people.
      Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman could make that point during the debate on the new schedule.
      Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: The debate on these amendments has been made more complicated by the fact that unfortunately they were incorrectly printed on the Order Paper for Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday. They bore no resemblance to the amendments on the Amendment Paper today. I wonder why the amendments were not starred, because they were certainly not on the Order Paper yesterday in the form in which they appear today. I refer principally to amendment No. 30. If you would like me to bring both versions to you, Mr. Speaker, I can do so.
      Mr. Speaker: When I made my selection, the amendments were not starred and I was able to make my selection from all the amendments which were listed on the Order Paper at the time.
      Mr. Jopling: In commenting on my hon. Friend's question, I think it is correct that when amendment 30 was tabled a week ago—I referred to it in the House at question time last Thursday—it was correctly printed.
      Mr. Speaker: I think that we should proceed.
      Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: It was incorrectly printed in the third succeeding edition.
      Mr. Speaker: It was correct when I made my selection.
      Mr. Jopling: Before I deal specifically with the clause, I should like to apologise to the House for the absence of my right hon. Friend the Minister of State who hopes to be here by 5.30 pm. His wife presented him with a small daughter within the hour. He hopes to be here as soon as possible so that he may reply to the debate.
      The new clause and schedule which are tabled in my name are directed at an urgent and pressing problem. Many tenants of dairy farms are at a stage where they wish to retire or move to a new farm. If they do so, as the law stands at present the quota which they have helped to build up will remain on the land, and they will get no share of its value. Yet it is now generally accepted that in almost all cases both landlord and tenant have contributed to the quota and are entitled to some recognition of that.
      In the last few months I have been engaged in the most intensive and through discussions with the National Farmers Union, the Tenant Farmers Association and the Country Landowners Association to try to find an agreed solution to the problem. Most regrettably it has not proved possible to reach agreement despite very genuine endeavours on all sides. In this situation I am clear that it is up to me to act. Indeed, 69 of my colleagues have urged me to do precisely this in early-day motion 650. It would be quite wrong to walk away from the problems, as the effect of doing so would be to leave tenants with no early prospect of any recognition of the contribution they have made to the quota which is attached to the land.
      Mr. David Harris: As one who signed the early-day motion, I ask my right hon. Friend whether he accepts that when we called on him to act, some of us at least did not expect him to use this Bill as the vehicle for bringing in a decision? It was expected that the whole question would be dealt with fully in legislation which would have full and proper consideration rather than being dealt with in an hour or two this evening, without hon. Members have any chance to consider it again.
      Mr. Jopling: The Bill came out of Committee at the end of January. I have seen reports in the press over the past few months that its progress through the House was delayed because the Government were trying very hard to find a way of getting agreement, so that the matter could be dealt with in the Bill. I think that has been generally known and I am surprised at my hon. Friend's reaction.
      I had to reach a view as to what is reasonable in a situation where the landlords' and tenants' representatives take sharply opposed views as to what should be done. Hon. Members on both sides of the House will have seen the briefing which has been put out by various parties pointing in opposite directions. They may have noted that
      1046
      on the one hand the National Farmers Union has described this proposal as "completely unfair", while on the other the Scottish Landowners Federation has suggested that it brings in
      "a principle hardly consistent with natural justice".
      Hon. Members may draw their own conclusions from the fact that the Government's proposal lies between the points of view of those two organisations. For my part I totally reject such extravagant assertions as have been made. On the contrary, I believe that the solution which is set out in the Government's new clause and schedule is fair and reasonable both to landlords and tenants.
      5.15 pm
      Mr. Eric Forth: Will my right hon. Friend help hon. Members at this stage by saying whether, when he approached the problem, he sought a solution which would provide the full range of possibilities on any one judgment from, as it were, zero to 100, or whether he had it in mind to put an arbitrary limit on the apportionment of value which could be given to either side? It would help some of us greatly if he could let us know what he had in mind.
      Mr. Jopling: I shall come to exactly that point a little later in my speech. If I may be allowed to do it in my own way, I hope my hon. Friend will be satisfied.
      Mr. Peter Hardy rose—
      Mr. Jopling: These are complicated matters. I shall give way, but I hope that when I come to the section of my speech which is highly complicated I shall be allowed to explain the matter to the House without interruption.
      Mr. Hardy: I recognise the very serious difficulty which faces the Minister in trying to secure a just arrangement, but does he not accept that, where a tenant has himself incurred considerable capital cost, perhaps as much as or more than the landlord may have done, the arrangement to which the Minister seems to have been pointing may not be quite as just as he imagined in the first place?
      Mr. Jopling: I shall come to exactly that point. I think it is just and that the solution pays full regard to the investment that a tenant may have made.
      Mr. Tam Dalyell: Some of us have had representations from the Scottish National Farmers Union, Mr. John Biggar, and others. In the rather special circumstances of Scotland, could not the Scottish NFU and the other parties get together in a round table conference under the chairmanship of the Scottish Office Minister to try to sort out these complex matters?
      Mr. Jopling: My hon. Friend at the Scottish Office has already done that but, as I shall say later in my speech, my mind is not closed to further discussion.
      I am sure that most hon. Members understand the effect of the provisions, but I have found recently in talking to hon. Members and to specialist journalists that there is a good deal of misapprehension, so it might be helpful if I give the House at the outset a brief description of how the system will work.
      The starting point is that for each holding a standard quota will be calculated. That will be done by taking the number of hectares used for dairying on a holding and multiplying it by a standard yield per hectare which will be prescribed later in a statutory instrument. It is my

      1047
      intention to prescribe a standard yield per hectare somewhat below the national average yield of milk for this purpose. This is to take general account of the cuts which were applied in calculating quotas, which still affect a significant proportion of milk producers, especially the larger ones who did not have their quota brought back to pre-quota levels in the redistribution.
      Mrs. Kellett-Bowman rose—
      Mr. Jopling: I shall not give way. I hope my hon. Friend will allow me to continue.
      The yield which I have in mind to prescribe as the standard yield per hectare is based on 4,500 litres per cow. Hon. Members will be aware that the national average yield per cow is nearer 5,000 litres, which is considerably more.
      If one side feels that this calculation for arriving at a standard quota for a farm does not give the right result, he can argue for a different figure to be used. For example, the landlord might argue that the tenant had used too small a part of the holding for dairying, and that a higher number of hectares should be used in the calculation.
      A tenant might argue that the land was of poor quality and only marginally suitable for milk production, or that he had used a low-input system, and a lower yield per hectare should therefore he used. Those are perfectly legitimate arguments and many people have urged me to leave these difficult assessments to arbitrators, the experts. I have provided that where agreement cannot be reached on matters of that sort an arbitrator is at liberty to choose a more appropriate figure where that differs significantly from the standard.
      Having fixed this standard quota—the first part of the arrangement that I have been explaining—the next stage is to compare it with the actual quota on the holding. The tenant will get the whole of the value of the quota which lies above the standard. He thus gets full acknowledgement without reduction in cash terms for the fact that he has a quota for his farm that is bigger than might have been expected. It is impossible for us to be more generous to the tenant for that part of his production because he receives 100 per cent. compensation.
      We now come to the apportionment of the standard quota between tenant and landlord. In deciding how to do that, I decided that the best way was to build on the well established process of assessing tenant's improvements, a process that is already familiar in the agricultural holdings legislation. The proportion is decided by reference first to the tenant's improvements and then to the rent which the landlord has charged. These two elements determine respectively the tenant's and the landlord's share. The total amount a typical tenant receives is thus 100 per cent. of the value of his excess quota, the amount over the standard quota, plus a percentage of the standard quota, which is related to the value of his improvements.
      Let me make it clear that apart from this calculation the tenant will also continue to receive at the end of the tenancy the compensation to which he is entitled under the Agricultural Holdings Act. Nothing in this affects that. That is a quite separate calculation which is unaffected by the new provisions, and compensation for quota is an additional sum which a tenant will receive.
      Mr. Ralph Howell: Will my right hon. Friend explain what he has just said? If a tenant pays for 100 per cent. of the improvement, will he get 100 per cent. of that part of the quota?
      Mr. Jopling: I am afraid my hon. Friend did not catch what I said. The proportion is decided by reference to the tenant's improvement and then by reference to the rent that the landlord has charged. The value of the improvement is put in terms of rent and then that is put as a percentage of the rent and the tenant's improvement put together. That is a familiar formula for valuers and should not cause too much trouble.
      Mr. Brynmor John: At the end of the day, the important figure is the percentage that a tenant might receive on the total milk quota. In an earlier discussion a figure of 33 per cent. was used. Could the Minister give an illustrative figure of the percentage a tenant might receive of the total milk quota on the present formula?
      Mr. Jopling: I shall come to that point and, as I said to his hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) perhaps I might be allowed to come to it in my own way.
      Mr. Patrick Nicholls: My right hon. Friend said that low intensive farming would be taken into account and, impliedly, no injustice would be wrought. We have heard that the variation has to be more than 20 per cent.
      If that is relevant, it does not seem to answer the point about low intensive farming. If the 20 per cent. is not relevant, then clearly it does answer the point.
      Mr. Jopling: The 20 per cent. trigger point is relevant to that. That is why I said that it made a substantial change in the position. I should like to talk about the tenant who, for whatever reason, has less than the standard quota, the tenant who finds himself with a quota that is lower than the standard quantity. There is a problem here, because the tenant is generally leaving behind him a quota inadequate for the holding. We have to bear in mind the interest of the incoming tenant who is likely in practice to have to find the money. The outgoing tenant's share of the actual quota, calculated for the standard quota, is therefore reduced in proportion to the shortfall. He will, however, still receive, as before, whatever compensation is due to him under the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1986.
      That is the second time I have made that point, but it is important to make the position clear.
      The effect of all this is, first, that we have a system which is flexible because it allows the professional judgment of arbitrators to be applied to the circumstances of the individual case, and second, the tenant who has performed well and put a great deal of skill, effort and expense into his enterprise will do well. Under certain hypotheses we estimate that the tenant who has performed well could receive more than about two thirds of the total value of the quota. At the other end of the scale the tenant who has invested nothing and has a low level of milk production could get nothing.
      But just as there is virtually no case where a landlord should get nothing, there are no circumstances in which even the worst tenant would have to compensate his landlord for what I will loosely call his dilapidations on milk quota. Bearing in mind that the money will normally be found from the incoming tenant, whose ability to pay

      1049
      will depend upon the economic potential of the holding, these proposals provide a system which is fair to all parties.
      Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: How did my right hon. Friend arrive at the figure of 20 per cent. as a substantial difference? In the milk quota regulations 15 per cent. triggers off special hardship on grounds of weather or animal disease or other hardship. Does my right hon. Friend realise how crucial this is? The House has no control over the standard quota figure that he adopts. It is unamendable under the negative resolution procedure and may not even be debated.
      5.30 pm
      Mr. Jopling: I should be surprised if such a matter were not debated. However, that is a matter of opinion. As regards the figure of 20 per cent., it is important that we should try to achieve uniformity throughout the country—I shall come to that point a little later—and I believe that my hon. Friend holds that view most firmly. But variations should be made only when they are substantial. That is why I used the word "substantial".
      Sir Adam Butler: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Jopling: I shall not give way, as I do not want the House to lose the drift of my remarks.
      Sir Adam Butler: It is on a very important point.
      Mr. Jopling: In that case, I give way to my right hon. Friend.
      Sir Adam Butler: I apologise for intervening, but I wish to raise an important point. My right hon. Friend said that in the optimum situation, the maximum that an outgoing tenant would receive was two thirds. Many of us think that in that situation, where the tenant has done virtually everything to create that business and where the landlord has only drawn the rent and made no contributions to buildings or anything else, the maximum obtainable should be nearer the 90 per cent. mark.
      Mr. Jopling: The important point is that in all such calculations it must be borne in mind that by providing the land, the landlord has clearly provided one of the ingredients in the quota.[Interruption.] I would not expect Opposition Members to accept that point, but perhaps they will bear with me for a moment.
      The land has helped to create the quota so due accounts must be taken of it. By the very introduction of quotas, the landlord has had a penalty imposed upon his land whereby it is no longer able to produce unlimited quantities of milk as it could before the introduction of quotas.
      Much of the discussion about this subject, as can be seen in the briefing that the NFU has circulated to hon. Members, has concentrated on the average award that a tenant will receive. Several hon. Members have raised that point with me, not least my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Marland), who I know feels strongly about it. However, that concentration is unfortunate for two reasons. First, it is impossible to forecast with any accuracy where the average might come about. The variations in circumstances are so wide, particularly the variations in the value of tenants' improvements, that any such estimates are fraught with
      1050
      enormous difficulty. Secondly, and more importantly, it is not the average that matters anyway. What matters is the result for each individual farmer and whether the individual is being treated fairly. If tenants and landlords are being treated fairly in individual cases, we can say that the totality of the system is fair.
      It has been suggested—it is implicit in new clause 6, or what I shall call, for shorthand purposes, the NFU clause—that a 50–50 split should be the norm. But surely the starting point should be the facts of the case rather than some arbitrary figure. The more I have thought about the matter and the more I have considered the role of the arbitrator, the more firmly convinced I have become that we should not pluck a figure from the air in that way. Superficially a 50–50 split looks fair; it always does. However, there is no logic to it.
      I just do not think it right to impose an arbitrary figure in that way. But I should make it clear that if, in the further progress of the Bill through Parliament, either side in the dispute or either side in the House wishes to make representations seeking to make this method of calculation even fairer than it is, I shall be happy to listen during the next few weeks. That is the primary reason why I cannot go along with new clause 6 which stands in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, South-East (Mr. Hicks). That clause suggests that a 50–50 split should be the norm, based on a situation in which the landlord has provided
      "all the dairy buildings, and their appurtenances and plant".
      That does not look to me like the average case, and I have grave doubts about it on that score. But in any case it implies that the tenant who has made no improvements is to get half the value of the quota.
      A tenant who has allowed his farm seriously to run down would presumably get less than 50 per cent., but might still get a significant share. I do not see how that can be defended, given that the landlord's interest in the holding would have been severely damaged by that tenant's behaviour. We cannot say to the landlord, "You must not only bear the cost of the fall in the value of your land caused by your tenant's neglect, but you must compensate the tenant for the privilege." Yet that would be the inevitable result of that proposal.
      There are two other reasons why I cannot accept new clause 6. First, we have to provide a framework within which professional valuers can operate. If we do not do so, we shall find very different treatment being given to essentially similar cases. Indeed, that was the point that I made to my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop). I believe that new clause 6 would give unpredictable results. The guidance that it gives is short and very general. As a result, we would have much longer arbitrations, more contentious arbitrations and, quite simply, many more of them.
      Our proposal provides a framework within which, in most cases, landlord and tenant should be able to reach agreement on the amount of compensation to be paid. Where agreement cannot be reached, we have guidelines within which professional valuers can readily operate. Surely that is a better way of going about things.
      Secondly, although it may look simpler, new clause 6 is seriously defective. It does not address a whole series of issues which we have covered in the proposed new schedule, such as the definition of eligible tenants and the application to Crown lands. Such matters cannot be

      1051
      ignored. I make no apology for the complexity of the proposals that I have put before the House. They have to cover a wide range of circumstances.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes (Mr. Benyon) has tabled three amendments to the Government's new schedule. The third seeks to restrict the types of tenants' improvements to be taken into account. I just cannot accept that. The first two amendments are directed at a technical point that is concerned with statutory successions. If my hon. Friend would be good enough to withdraw those two amendments, I will arrange for the matter to be considered further, and for any necessary action to he taken in the other place, provided that the House agrees with these proposals.
      The discussion on this subject has tended to focus on the interests of the National Farmers Union and the Tenant Farmers Association on the one hand, and of the Country Landowners Association on the other. This is natural; it is these organisations which have participated in the discussions we have had in the last few months, and I would like to thank them for their constructive approach and their willingness to consider all possibilities exhaustively. But one party is not represented in these discussions and that, quite simply, is the person who is not yet a dairy farmer.
      We must not make the barriers to entry too high and we must remember that the interests of incoming and of existing tenants differ. Some people have suggested to me that in most cases we are dealing not with a landlord-tenant problem but with a tenant-tenant problem. This may be too simple a way of putting it, but there is a serious underlying point here.
      I believe our proposals are fair to sitting tenants, prospective tenants and landlords. In preparing the proposals, I have been greatly assisted by the contribution of ideas from the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors and the Central Association of Agricultural Valuers, both of whom have long experience of being fair to both sides. The Government's new clause and schedule draw very heavily on their ideas, and I make no apology for having taken from them the idea of a standard quota.
      Finally, I should mention that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has also been consulting interests in Scotland, and proposals which take account of particular Scottish circumstances will be brought forward in due course.
      Several Hon. Members rose—
      Mr. Jopling: I have not had time to mention a number of aspects or I have touched upon them only briefly, but I hope that I have given the House an understanding of how the system will operate. I have given very careful thought to other approaches, but I have concluded that this system is the fairest, most flexible and most practical that can be devised. I believe it is necessary to take this action now to let tenants and landlords know where they stand, and I ask the House to agree.
      Mr. Robert Hicks: I welcome the Minister's acknowledgement that tenant farmers involved in milk production should be compensated, on termination of their tenancy, for their contribution to the establishment of the milk quota from their farm units. That is a major step forward, and I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for his recognition of that fact. I believe it is only right that that should be done, bearing in mind that, under
      1052
      the rules, the milk quota, which represents a valuable capital asset which will have accrued in part from a tenant's lifetime of work and investment, will be left by the outgoing tenant with the landowner.
      The key issue, of course, is, how the value of the milk quota should he apportioned between the landlord and the outgoing tenant. It is not an easy problem. I am sure that all of us, irrespective of the side of the House on which we sit, recognise that fact. Devising an acceptable and fair formula will not be easy.
      I have to say to my right hon. Friend, however, that, seven days since new clause 4 was tabled, many colleagues have told me that, while they may not in every respect go along with the provisions in my new clause, they are equally uneasy in their minds about my right hon. Friend's proposals, not least because they are so complex.
      5.45 pm
      Furthermore, it is important that Parliament should get it right today, because this may be the forerunner of other parallel situations in the event of quotas being introduced in this country and in Europe in respect of other crops that may be produced.—[HON. MEMBERS: "God forbid."] Some of my hon. Friends say, "God forbid." But it is certainly a possibility. Therefore, if this is to be used as the blueprint, added responsibility is placed on all of us today to make sure that we achieve the most acceptable and fair compromise.
      There are 37,000 milk producers in England and Wales, of whom at least 40 per cent. are involved in tenancy agreements. The Minister has today submitted his proposals and outlined the details. The basic reason why I, together with more than 20 of my hon. Friends and, indeed, a number of Opposition Members, have tabled an alternative for determining the basis of the landlord-tenant share is that the Minister's scheme does not sufficiently recognise the tenants' contribution to the milk quota value. It is on this basis of fairness and justice to the tenant's position that I wish to argue my case.
      In essence, as the Minister has outlined, his proposal seeks to establish a standard quota. The proportion of that standard quota that should be attributed to the tenant is the crucial point under discussion. If, as the Minister has said, the allowed quota for that farm unit is higher than the standard quota, the excess or difference is automatically credited to the tenant. We all understand that, but, given the make-up of the formula of my right hon. Friend's proposal, I suggest that very few tenant farmers will get into the tenant quota stakes at all. They will be limited because of the physical constraints brought about by the introduction of milk quotas and by the figure that the Minister is introducing as part of his formula.
      Even if one accepts the somewhat artificial division of the milk quota between the standard quota on the one hand and the tenant's fraction on the other—which I certainly do not—there are certain critical aspects of the proposal that I believe we must consider carefully. This involves the measurement of the standard quota and the criteria for assessing what part of that standard quota should be attributed to the tenant. I believe that the Minister's proposals are too narrow and restrictive. That is why I believe that structurally they act against the interest of the tenant. There is the relationship between the notional rent value, reflecting the improvements that the tenant has made, and the overall rent charged for that farm holding. My right hon. Friend will know—although naturally he

      1053
      did not admit it to the House when explaining his proposals—that in practice that is bound to be a relatively small percentage.
      Although I do not accept some of the things that have been described to Members of Parliament as the realities of the situation, it is worth pointing out to my right hon. Friend that the Milk Marketing Board—which has no direct interest in this, unlike the CLA and NFU—has stated that it believes that the proposed formula to be used to determine the compensation to outgoing tenants for milk quota is incapable of providing many tenants with a fair deal.
      That is a fair and objective assessment by a professional organisation that has direct knowledge of, but no direct involvement in, the distribution of the milk quota value. Its advice should be heeded.
      Mr. W. Benyon: How many NFU representatives are there on the Milk Marketing Board?
      Mr. Hicks: To the best of my knowledge, the Milk Marketing Board is directly elected and represents geographical constituencies. Three members of that board are elected by national constituencies.
      My right hon. Friend responded to the three major criticisms that have been made about the problems that will arise from his proposals. I am not convinced by his argument in respect of the low-cost, low-input farmer. Devon and Cornwall are full of such producers. Although my right hon. Friend said that the arbitrator can alter the basic reference point, I am not certain from what he said—I shall read his words carefully tomorrow—that it meets the criticisms that have been expressed. The same argument applies to those who farm in marginal areas.
      Having established the standard quota, the Minister has confirmed that the fraction to be apportioned to the tenant is to be calculated on what I would describe as the narrow basis of the rental value of the improvements made by the tenant and the tenant's fixed equipment compared with the rental value of the dairy unit as a whole.
      Mr. Douglas Hogg: My hon. Friend is critical of the method of calculation. Does he accept that it is generally used in claims for improvement under the 1948 Act and that it is also the relevant calculation in claims by business tenants under part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954?
      Mr. Hicks: To the best of my knowledge, that is correct. In response I would say that we are now dealing with an entirely new situation brought about by the introduction of milk quotas two years ago. Therefore, while taking account of precedent and parallel procedure, this House has a responsibility to make certain that what we formulate tonight is correct in respect of the landlord and tenant.
      We can talk only in averages, because, although there is a host of individual situations, we must reflect them as averages. That means that the tenant's proportion will in most cases inevitably be well below 50 per cent. I believe that my right hon. Friend's proposals are basically unfair, because they do not do justice to the tenant's position.
      Mr. William Cash: My hon. Friend has referred on a number of occasions to the different circumstances that could arise, and he has related them to
      1054
      the class of person who may be affected under the provisions in the schedule. It occurs to me that there are provisions for different cases within any given class, but has my hon. Friend considered whether these provisions might be hybrid?
      Mr. Hicks: I thought that I explained in my introductory remarks that I was attempting to put forward an alternative system that I believed to be fairer and which acknowledged the tenant situation in a more practical and accurate manner than the proposals of my right hon. Friend. I accept that there may be technical deficiencies, but I am more concerned about getting it right in practice.
      I shall explain why I suggest that the proposals in new clause 6 are to be preferred. In general, they recognise the contribution of the tenant's expertise and financial investment, about which I have been talking. There is no arbitrary classification of the quota into the standard quota and the tenant's fraction. The new clause takes account of the contributions made by both the landlord and the tenant. I subsections (6)(a) and (10) we set out the criteria that should be used in determining respective proportions. These include not only the fixed costs—which are also included in my right hon. Friend's proposals—but also the variable assests as well.
      This list for assessing what the proportion should be reflects the situation in practice. It is more comprehensive than the Minister's somewhat narrow and restrictive formula, which, in my judgment, works to the disadvantage of the tenant. To establish the principle of justice to which I have referred—I emphasise this, because I am sure that my right hon. Friend did not deliberately wish to mislead the House about my counter proposals—the starting point of any arbitration process should be the equal division of the quota value allocation in the case outlined in subsection (6)(c).
      I emphasise that that is meant to be a starting point in the interests of fairness and justice. It is right to enshrine this position into statute. Of course, the actual breakdown will vary. I understand that it could end up as 70–30 either way, but the starting point is essential, and we must be seen to be manifesting justice in formulating our proposals.
      I make no apology for repeating the fact that I believe that my right hon. Friend's proposals are far too complex. In spite of what he said, I suggest that they do not in reality do justice to the expertise and financial investment that a tenant farmer may well have made over 40 years of his working life. Of course, this has political implications, too, as regards the party in government.
      I ask my right hon. Friend to take account of these important additional aspects, bearing in mind the need for justice to the tenant not only to be seen but also to be effective in reality, before he throws out all the suggestions that my right hon. and hon. Friends are making this evening.
      6 pm
      Mr. John: May I add my congratulations in his presence to the Minister of State? I suppose that he is more accurately described as the "Minister in a state" at the moment.
      The buzz phrase of this debate is "I make no apology". I have lost count of the number of times that it was used by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and even the hon. Member for Cornwall, South-East (Mr.

      1055
      Hicks) fell into the trap. Why should I resist the temptation when it is widespread? So I make no apology for beginning my contribution by observing that we are now paying the penalty for the haste with which the milk quota scheme was introduced. It has made a capital asset of what had hitherto not been traded.
      To make the case, I have only to refer to Farmers Weekly of 7 March 1986, in which the Milk Marketing Board talks about people who have milk quotas and are trying to trade them, yet who have never themselves produced milk. We are talking about a scheme which was introduced far too quickly and which has had unfortunate consequences.
      This is the most peculiar Report stage of a Bill in my experience. The Bill came out of Committee on time, in accordance with an agreement, which we never hear about, on 28 January, 11 weeks ago today. This must be something of a record. I should like to know of a wider gap than that between the Report and Committee stages. We know—even the right hon. Gentleman admitted that he knew, from reading the papers—that negotiations have taken place during that time between the Country Landowners Association, the National Farmers Union and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on the question of the outgoing tenant's right to milk quota.
      Not suddenly, but rather surprisingly—at any rate to those of us who had given up expectation of ever seeing the Bill again—last Friday there was tabled a new clause over seven pages long. Even allowing for the postponement of the debate by one day, it means that people who have been interested and who have been waiting for this, even if it has not come as a total surprise, have had less than a week in which to study it, and it has not had the advantage of the scrutiny, sometimes tedious but necessary, which a Committee of the House of Commons, considerng a Bill, can give it.
      I remind the right hon. Gentleman that when the development land tax was introduced in a schedule by my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies), a large number of constitutional protests came from Conservative Members, who were then in opposition, about the impropriety of introducing what was a mere three-page new clause. Yet now this has been introduced and the right hon. Gentleman says that he makes no apology for introducing it. I think that an apology is clue.
      The clause will be discussed, and I shall deal with its merits, but I want to make it clear that most of the discussion of this matter and its merits will be transferred to another place and that the House will effectively be neutered in its discussion of the clause, apart from tonight's debate, because of the way in which Government have chosen to introduce it. They could have chosen another way. I understand why the right hon. Gentleman wanted to take advantage of the bus that is actually at the stop. Nevertheless, the new clause is a substantial addition to the original Bill, not a mere addition arising out of Committee, and, if the House cannot comprehend some of the explanations given by the right hon. Gentleman, it is his own fault for having introduced at so late a stage and in such complexity this sort of scheme.
      Mr. Robert Maclennan: The Minister, in explanation of the hurry, sought to exculpate himself from giving the House inadequate time. He spoke of the urgency of the measure and the need for
      1056
      a settlement. Has the hon. Gentleman noticed that the same argument has not been applied to those w ho hold dairy quotas in Scotland?
      Mr. John: I always look with trepidation on the Scottish position, for obvious reasons. Nevertheless, I agree that there is selective haste here.
      In aiding the House to discuss the matter, the right hon. Gentleman really has something of a duty to give illustrative figures. He has given some, but they are not, with respect, the illustrative figures, which I understand were the subject of the discussions which all of us, including the Minister, read about in the newspapers. I understand that the figure for the average value which a tenant would get out of the milk quota, which was used as an illustration during the negotiations, was 33 per cent. I do not know how accurate are the estimates of the NFU, but it has done its best in a very short time. It estimates that the average value to the tenant of the milk quota will be 25 per cent. While conscious of the special plea of the right hon. Gentleman, I do not believe that that in any way reflects a fair value for the outgoing tenant.
      As the right hon. Gentleman properly said, we must have regard to the new tenant who is coming in, but we must also have regard to the man who has built up the quota by his life's work. This seems to reproduce the conflict that often occurs—in a phoney way in my view—between what is due to the pensioner who created the wealth on which the modern generation relies and the person who is actually producing the wealth today. Unless there is a feeling of justice for a tenant farmer at the end of his tenancy in dealing with the milk quota, neither the person who is presently affected nor the one who is taking over the tenancy can feel any confidence at all.
      We really must press the right hon. Gentleman for an average figure. What will be the norm? Is it, as the NFU says, 25 per cent.? Is it the Milk Marketing Board figure, quoted by the hon. Member for Cornwall, South-East, somewhere between 10 and 35 per cent.? I know that individual cases can vary, but the true measure of the overall fairness of the scheme must be the average figure. Heavens knows, we use averages in the House often enough for the right hon. Gentleman not to be squeamish about revealing the average formula on this occasion.
      Mr. Nicholas Baker: It is incorrect to say that farmers have been working for years to build up the quota. What has happened is that the Government have suddenly introduced a quota, much to everyone's annoyance. What one must try to achieve is a fair way of recognising or rewarding the investment that has been made. Surely the figures that we ought to be interested in are the maximum and the minimum that a tenant can achieve, rather than the average?
      Mr. John: I do not agree. I believe that a good indication of the overall fairness of a scheme is the average production of that scheme. I agree that, in shorthand, it was the building up of the dairy business that I referred to, but that does not do away with the problem that I have raised.
      The right hon. Gentleman said that he did not want to look at the new clause of the hon. Member for Cornwall, South-East, to which I have added my name, because it imported an arbitrary figure, but he said in his speech that the maximum figure to which a tenant could be entitled,

      1057
      taking all into account, if he had built up the business and if there had been no substantial capital input from the landlord, and so on, would be 66·6 per cent.
      The arbitrary figure imposed is for the provision of the land. Even accepting the right hon. Gentleman's philosophy on that, if the landlord provides the land it is to be arbitrarily recompensed at one third. Therefore, under this formula the landlord could never obtain less than one third, but the tenant could get nothing, and certainly never more than two thirds. The parameters for the landlord are between one third and 100 per cent., but for the tenant they are between nothing and two thirds. That is not equitable. I suspect that the right hon. Gentleman will wish to consider that during the course of the debate.
      Dr. John Marek rose—
      Mr. John: I prefer not to give way. There have been many interventions in the debate and I know that many hon. Members want to speak. It is only fair to give them the opportunity to do so.
      The scheme will be a paradise for agricultural valuers. Would that we were all agricultural valuers at this time. It will not be cheap for either the tenant or the landlord—it is paid equally by them—and we know that fees even for simple things are not cheap. The matter will be complex.
      I worry whether the scheme will be workable at all. I hesitate to go into the Bill in great detail, because we are really debating a Committee point. However, this debate is effectively the only Committee stage that we will ever have on the new clause. I agree with the hon. Member for Cornwall, South-East about the standard yield. By definition, the tenant cannot have more than a small fraction of the value of the standard yield. The extra yield over the standard yield may not amount to very much in many cases.
      The right hon. Gentleman has tried to approach the matter in a slightly different way. I take it that the level of production that could reasonably have been expected under paragraph 6(1) of the schedule does not take account of the 10 per cent. quota cut imposed upon that land. I should be grateful if the right hon. Gentleman could confirm that, because it is one of the assumptions made by the NFU in calculating its average. It is important in assessing whether it is reasonable.
      Paragraph 6(2) will make matters even more difficult, because sub-sub-paragraph (a) refers to
      "the average number of hectares of the land used during the relevant period for the feeding of dairy cows kept on the land."
      There are at least two problems here. There is the division of the land, first, for different purposes and, secondly, for different species at the same time. How will the arbitrator approach that matter? How can he separate it in practice?
      The new clause makes no provision for a statutory instrument. There is a provision in the Bill that a statutory instrument be introduced on average litreage, but there is nothing for the average number of hectares. What is to be the average number of hectares? How on earth is the House to know the answer to that?
      The right hon. Gentleman said that he was satisfied that the schedule was right. He had better be satisfied, because the absence of provision for a statutory instrument means that if the scheme goes badly wrong the right hon.
      1058
      Gentleman will have to return to the House for primary legislation to enact any amendment. He will not be able to do it through the statutory instrument procedure.
      6.15 pm
      Under paragraph 6(3), two categories of person will be disadvantaged—the low-intensive system farmer and the producer on marginal land. The notes on clauses say that the Minister can prescribe different standard yields to suit different cases, and give the example that a different yield might be prescribed for different breeds of cattle. But what about different grades of land? Is that to be a factor? If it is not, it will mean penalisation.
      The hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) made a fair point. If there is to be at least a 20 per cent. difference to enable a departure from the standard formula, that will penalise many people who fall just short or even halfway short of that business. That will not be fair.
      The right hon. Gentleman has certainly produced unanimity—I cannot find any organisation that actually approves. Even the CLA, which if not unduly grateful might at least have been reasonably grateful, does not think that the system can work. The right hon. Gentleman says, as do all Ministers, that the fact that everybody is against him means that he must be right. Whether the Government are or are not right depends on where they pitch the final result.
      I believe, and I ask the House to accept, that if the final result is an average value for the tenant of 25 per cent. of the value of the milk quota—or somewhere between the 10 and 35 per cent. mentioned by the NFU and the Milk Marketing Board—it will be manifestly unfair. Even on the figures, sketchy as they are, produced by the right hon. Gentleman, the scheme is complicated and unworkable. It is a poor, scant reward for tenant farmers for their hard work and dedication.
      Sir Peter Mills: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister of State on producing, as I have already said, a heifer calf. Nothing could be better at this time of talking about dairy quotas than to have that. What a success. I hope that all goes well.
      I am rather distressed by the need for this new clause. I do not like to say this, but I am annoyed with the CLA and the NFU because they have not got their act together and decided among themselves. That has put my right hon. Friend in an exraordinarily difficult position as he tries to be Solomon. Surely they could have reached some agreement.
      I should have thought that the CLA would want to assist the Government in this dilemma. After all, it has been well looked after by the Government. It has had no fear of land taxation or nationalisation. Indeed, the Government have helped it with taxation on capital transfer and so on. Therefore, I expected it to bend over backwards to reach agreement.
      Again, it gives me no pleasure to say that the NFU should have done more, although I realise that it has moved a great deal further than the CLA. Under the quota system, the dairy sector has done extremely well—margins over costs are very good and interest rates are coming down. Recently, my right hon. Friend said that for every 1 per cent. drop in interest rates, £50 million came off the burden for British agriculture. I would have hoped that the NFU could reach agreement with the CLA.
      I want to blow my own trumpet a little. The Devon NFU and CLA actually got together and decided on a

      1059
      certain course. I congratulate the chairmen and secretaries of the NFU and CLA in Devon. As the Minister can see from that agreement, his representations were well received by them. No doubt with adjustments that agreement might have been accepted and we could have brought it with us today.
      On receiving my letter detailing the agreement, the Minister replied:
      "I find it very encouraging that these county branches should have been prepared to work together so constructively in an attempt to find a satisfactory solution."
      Why could that not have been done nationally? It is in the interests of the CLA and the NFU to have done so. Both sides should have given in slightly on these matters so that we could have had agreement, for much is at stake here. If we are to have further quotas, it would be better for them to reach agreement than for the Minister to bring this upon us. The Minister will not satisfy the CLA or the NFU.
      The brief that we received from the NFU raises three important points. The first is:
      "The definition of standard quota takes no account of the 10 per cent. cuts in production level already imposed."
      The Minister has answered that by lowering the standard level. The second point is:
      "The proposals would penalise highly competent tenants who use low intensive systems of milk production."
      That is an important matter. I listened carefully to what the Minister said. I agree that this could be taken into account by the assessor or arbitrator, but I would like that firmed up. When this goes to the House of Lords, I hope that we can have something a little stronger, so that we can be clear that there is fair play towards those with low input production. The third point is:
      "Producers on marginal land would have great difficulty in establishing any excess quota, through no fault of their own."
      I agree with those three points and hope that they can be considered further.
      The fairness shown to the incomng tenant is the nub of the legislation. We must get the balance right between the outgoer and the incomer. The sums involved are pretty high. They might be as much as £20,000 to £25,000. Just think what that would mean to an incoming tenant. He would not be able to find that sum and buy machinery and the other things that he needs to get the farm going.
      At meeting after meeting I have heard constantly from the NFU and, rightly, from young farmers, "What will you do about young people getting tenancies? If we go too far with the outgoers scheme, the incomers will not get a look in." That must be sorted out. That is why I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, South-East (Mr. Hicks), with whom I have shared a room for many years. I believe that it would be unfair to the incoming tenant, so it is a crucial point.
      The hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) asked why there was such a hurry to introduce the measure after such a long delay. Many tenants who are retiring now will get nothing if we do not pass the legislation. That is why the Minister has bent over backwards to get this agreement. It was necessary to save those tenants who are retiring. It is important that we pass the Bill, but I hope that adjustments can be made in the House of Lords to take into account the points that I have raised.
      Mr. John: Although I concede the urgency, I do not believe that parliamentary scrutiny of the documents should be a mere formality. I do not believe that the other place should be the only place that can deal with these matters, merely because we have boxed ourselves into a
      1060
      corner, and cannot find the time to consider the Bill properly. Does the hon. Gentleman share my regret that the House is unable to debate the matter properly?
      Sir Peter Mills: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. The other side of the coin is that if we do not get started, those tenants will get no compensation for going out. One might criticise the Minister for not speeding this up, but he tried time after time to get the two sides together. He displayed more patience than I have, but finally he had to act as Solomon in this matter. I hope that the House of Lords will correct the small errors.
      Will the capital sum that the tenants receive be taxed? Will the landlord be able to set the payment that he must make to the outgoing tenant against his income? Those are important points. The outgoer may think that he has £20,000, only to find that it is heavily taxed.
      Much of the assessment work will be done by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. But what about the Association of Land Valuers? It is important that it has an equal share in these matters. I may be wrong, but I believe that tenant farmers would value its assessments more than they would assessments by the RICS. The Minister said that there would be some flexibility in the matter. Will he give firm guidelines to the assessors so that they can carry out the wishes of the House? Is there a right of appeal finally to the Minister?
      Amendment No. 31 is interesting because it proposes to facilitate the use of land for other purposes. My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) put his finger on an important point. We should study carefully alternative uses of our land instead of food production.
      This is an important measure. The Minister has made some reassuring remarks about flexibility and how the assessors or arbitrators can adjust to meet the points that have been raised. Above all, I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to think carefully about the incoming tenant, who could be penalised if the outgoer gets too much.
      Mr. Maclennan: The Minister deserves some sympathy from the House for his predicament, but in the last analysis one must admit that he has not satisfied any of those who are affected by the quota arrangements that were introduced hurriedly some time ago.
      Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn: Rubbish.
      Mr. Maclennan: The hon. and learned Gentleman says "Rubbish". If he would care to say which interest is satisfied by the Minister's proposal, I should be glad to hear it.
      Mr. Fairbairn: The NFU and the Scottish NFU complained of the rigidity of a 70–30 split and proposed an equally rigid split of 50–50. The Minister is to be congratulated on introducing an equitable scheme.
      Mr. Maclennan: The hon. and learned Gentleman has made my point. He was not able to cite anyone other than himself who has been satisfied by the Minister.
      I recognise the urgency of coming to a conclusion on the matter. I regret the fact that the Minister has taken so long to bring forward proposals. This problem is not a new or unforeseeable one. It was inherent in the introduction of quotas, and attention was drawn to it in discussions on quotas when they were first introduced, in which context proposals were made by members of the alliance parties that they should be tradeable. We published a document

      1061
      the December before last suggesting that arbitration was the proper way to proceed. For many months, the Minister has been pressed to formulate an equitable solution.
      6.30 pm
      We cannot accept, as an excuse for the extraordinary way in which the Minister has proceeded, the need to move speedily now. The vehicle of the Agriculture Bill is convenient for the Government but not for the House of Commons. It is not convenient to be presented with more than seven pages of schedule containing detailed proposals that we have less than a week to study and consider amendments to and that we cannot properly debate on Report. The Government are making a farce of parliamentary procedure.
      It appears, too, that Scottish hon. Members are to be given no opportunity to consider the proposals for Scotland. Apparently, consultations in Scotland are not yet complete. Doubtless provisions will appear in the other House at some time, but the Government's attitude remains unclear. What is clear is that the Scottish interests are no more satisfied than interests south of the border are satisfied by what the Minister has proposed for England.
      Mr. John Corrie: If provisions about Scotland are added in another place, they will return here in the form of Lords amendments and will have to be debated.
      Mr. Maclennan: I have already acknowledged that Lords amendments would be considered on the Floor of the House, but the same objection applies to that procedure as to what we are doing today. It is extremely difficult to give proper consideration to detailed legislation on the Floor of the House. Matters such as these should be considered in Committee and debated extensively, and we should be able to take advice about them. We should be able to hear, on each paragraph or sub-paragraph of such a lengthy schedule, the views of those affected.
      I am sure that the Minister would not defend today's procedure as being ideal. It is far from satisfactory. We are dealing with the prospects not only of those leaving dairying but also of those who are entering it. We are dealing with a valuable asset that in many cases has been built up over a number of years. The legislation will affect not only the disposition of wealth between landlord and tenant but the disposition of the potential for an income of those who wish to farm in the future. The Country Landowners Association has drawn attention to its view that incoming tenants will be adversely affected by what is proposed, and the NFU has pointed to the adverse effects on outgoing tenants. It is clear that tenants in general will suffer under the Government's proposals.
      I agree with the Minister on one point—the general principle that he stated as his starting point. He said that we should start from the facts of the case and not from an arbitrary figure. That is an attractive view. The value of the landlord's assets and the landlord's capital input into an enterprise will vary from case to case, as will the value of the tenant's.
      However, when the Minister suggests that his own approach amounts to starting from the facts of the case, that argument is not sustainable. The Minister has invented a formula—complex and opaque, but a formula none the less—and that is the starting point. The concept of
      1062
      the standard quota is a starting point that is not neutral; it is predetermined. It is also defined with such a degree of complexity that it will be almost impossible for farmers to use it to make the ready evaluation of their entitlements that the Minister suggested that they would be able to arrive at by simple consultation with each other. The Minister must be wrong if he believes that the use of his formula will make arbitration unnecessary. It is so opaque that there is bound to be a sense of grievance on both sides. The possibilities for dispute seem to me to be legion.
      I note that the suggestion was put forward by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, which is certainly not unfamiliar with dealing with such disputes. No doubt its members will be involved in sorting out disputes arising from this legislation. However, I do not think that we can feel any confidence that the Minister has avoided the problem that he rightly sought to avoid.
      The Minister said that he would be prepared to listen to arguments over the next few weeks. Arguments on what? One of the arguments that has been put forward is that of the NFU, and the Minister has clearly rejected it already. The argument was that there should be a starting point of equilibrium between the two parties to a potential dispute. It is unfortunate that the Minister has so speedily rejected that starting point. It was no more than a starting point, and, as the hon. Member for Cornwall, South-East (Mr. Hicks) pointed out, the formula that the NFU has put forward could result in considerable variations in division of quota between landowner and tenant.
      If the Minister will show willingness to reconsider his approach to the NFU new clause—new clause 6, which is in the name of the hon. Member for Cornwall, South-East and a number of other hon. Members from both sides of the House—the debate will have served a most valuable purpose.
      The industry wants to get the matter right. The industry wants to get it right more than it wants it to be settled this week or tonight. The industry wants it to be right not only for reasons of equity, and not only because it is necessary to do justice between landowner and tenant, but also because the formula could provide for similar arrangements if in due course other quota systems are introduced in this country. I know that the Minister recoils from that thought and may regard it as utterly unattractive. He was similarly hostile to the idea of introducing milk quotas. We cannot take much comfort from that. Perhaps in reply the Minister will tell us precisely what arguments he will listen to in the next few weeks.
      Mr. Cash: On behalf of the alliance, will the hon. Gentleman tell us the extent to which his arguments bear on its proposals for the rating of agricultural land?
      Mr. Maclennan: the hon. Gentleman is perpetuating the myth, which has appeared in various Conservative handbooks, that the alliance is committed to rating agricultural enterprises differently from the way in which they are rated at present. He is not throwing light on the debate, but is seeking to throw dust in the jurymen's eyes.
      I must address some remarks to amendment (a) to new clause 6 which seeks to extend the provisions to Scotland. I admit that that has been prepared without proper consultation with all the interests in Scotland. We have more milk marketing boards than England, and know that the National Farmers Union of Scotland is unhappy about the Government's proposals.
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John MacKay): The hon. Gentleman would know, if he had discussed these matters with either the Scottish NFU or the Scottish Landowners Federation, that my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister of State has had discussions with them to try to reach an agreed solution. Unfortunately, to date that has proved to be absolutely impossible.
      Mr. Maclennan: We are interested to know whether the Minister proposes to apply the same solution to Scotland as has been applied to England. I assume that that is the most likely probability. It seemed reasonable to adopt the detailed and workable proposals advanced by the NFU in England. It would have been quite easy for us to try to devise another amendment embodying similar principles, but when work of this kind has been done it seems sensible to adopt it.
      Many Conservative Members are anxious to participate in the debate. Therefore, I shall make my remarks brief. The Government would do well to listen to the views of those who support new clause 6, and not to remain committed against it. This is not a matter which will divide the House on party lines. It is important to say that because many regular supporters of the Government may feel that it is appropriate to support new clause 6. I hope that they will not feel inhibited from doing so because a number of hon. Members in other parts of the House support that sensible proposal.
      The Minister has had a difficult job to do. I do not in the least underestimate the problem. One must recognise that he has at least tried to be equitable, but I do not think that he has succeeded. That is why I hope that the House will support new clause 6.
      Mr. W. Benyon: I declare my interest as an owner of agricultural land, some of which is subject to milk quota.
      First, I shall deal with my amendment to the Government's schedule, amendment No. 30. I accept what my right hon. Friend the Minister said in his opening remarks, and I shall not seek to move amendments (a) and (b). All I seek is that only one successor should have an entitlement under section 46 of the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986.
      I accept what my right hon. Friend said in respect of amendment (c) which seeks to replace "relevant" with "specific", but I hope that that matter will be considered further. With "relevant", we include matters which are not just dairying matters, for example, field drainage, which could also be used in respect of the production of beef and cereals. Every farm is different. That is why I am glad that the Government, at least on this aspect, have accepted that point, and that we shall not seek to divide the compensation on a fixed ratio.
      6.45 pm
      Let us consider the position before quotas were introduced. What happened at the end of a tenancy? The tenant sold his stock and machinery, was repaid the residue of his improvements or, in some cases, of dilapidation, and that was that. Then along came quotas and, lo and behold, a heavy capital tax was imposed on the landlord. If we accept new clause 6, it will mean that on a 100-cow unit the landlord will have to find about £30,000. It is said that the incoming tenant will find this, but it is a substantial sum and it will rise as the holding becomes larger.
      1064
      What will all this do to the landlord-tenant system, which is recovering slowly from the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976? At best, landlords will be reluctant to relet land, and at worst, they will say, "We will never ever put ourselves in this position again. We were kicked on the shins in 1976 and now we are being kicked again." I speak from personal experience because over the past 18 months I have let three farms, two of which are dairy farms, following the change in the tenancy laws. What will I do in the future? The most important question, which was dealt with eloquently by my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Sir P. Mills), is what this will do to incoming tenants.
      It was incredibly short-sighted of the National Farmers Union in its brief to hon. Members not once to have mentioned that point. It is all very well to concentrate on the position of existing tenants—I accept that their position must be considered—but not to mention the position of future tenants is to neglect the future of British agriculture.
      I realise that my right hon. Friend the Minister has had a difficult task and that the matter is extremely complicated. There are only three cases where a tenant is entitled to share a quota. The first is where, by his own competence, he has achieved a higher quota than would otherwise be established on the land. The second is where the tenant has invested in fixed equipment, and the third is where he has purchased additional quota.
      The Government's schedule is not clear. I was interested to hear the Minister mention the figure of 4,500 litres per cow. I think that that figure is too low, but that is beside the point. However, the figure is absolutely crucial in assessing the effect which the proposal will have. When the outgoing tenant leaves the industry, the money that is due to him leaves the industry, which is already in severe financial difficulties, and that is an additional loss.
      Mr. Hicks: Surely my hon. Friend will accept that in many instances the outgoing tenant may well be moving to another tenancy or, indeed, to the ownership of his own cows. These people are not all retiring necessarily, and therefore it does not follow that all the money is going out of the industry.
      Mr. Benyon: My hon. Friend is right, but let us agree that the vast majority will be retiring and getting out of farming, because I think that that is how we all understand the position. I appreciate how difficult the situation has been and will be in the future. It is a sad day for British agriculture when we have to consider the present proposal, and an even sadder day for young people who wish to take part in the industry.
      Mr. Kevin Barron: I am concerned about the situation of a tenant farmer who came to my surgery about four weeks ago and told me about the plight he would be in should he retire from his farm, which is in the village of Brampton in my constituency. He brought with him a copy of Farmers Weekly. Last month I wrote to the Minister, and I understand why on this occasion he has not yet replied to that letter. In a long conversation in my surgery, this tenant farmer told me how concerned he was about the proposed legislation that is now before us. He said that for the past two years, although there had been a milk quota scheme, there was no way at present in which, if he gave up the tenancy, he would be

      1065
      compensated for what had been a lot of hard work, not just in getting quotas but in ensuring that he produced a good yield from the farm to enable him to accrue a benefit when his tenancy of the farm terminated. He also told me that the landlords' and tenants' associations had not been able to agree on the matter of quotas.
      Since then we have seen the Government's new clause 4—and new clause 6, which I understand is sponsored by the National Farmers Union—in relation to what should happen between a landlord and tenant in the ending of tenancies. In his opening speech, the Minister made great play of the fact that some tenants may be able to get up to 66 per cent. of the standard quota to which he referred. He said that they would get all that they produced above the standard quota.
      Although the number of tenant farmers has been mentioned, we have not been told the likely percentage of farmers who would reach the 66 per cent. and how many would be lower than that. Many percentages quoted in the debate have been much lower than two thirds of the share of the standard yield. I believe the Minister should have given us appropriate figures. He should have been able to say that the figures from the National Farmers Union are wrong, as are the percentages from the Milk Marketing Board, and that it is unlikely that people will get to that level.
      I would not want to see farming in this country changed dramatically. I am a layman—my association with the countryside is walking rather than working—but I have seen dramatic changes in farming over the years which have not achieved the best results for the environment.
      I am surprised that people constantly talk about the incoming tenant. The question is whether the outgoing tenant, who has worked on the farm and pushed up the quota and yield, is getting a fair deal on retirement. A similar question has been argued many times in the industry with which I was associated. In this debate we have heard arguments relating to the incoming tenant, when the important question is whether a tenant is fairly compensated when a tenancy comes to an end. The Minister has not convinced me that the arbitration provision in new clause 4 will suit the tenant farmer to whom I spoke a few weeks ago.
      I also refer to the tenant landlord, who is a tenant on one holding and a landlord on the rest. Such people, together with the NFU delegation, lobbied me yesterday. A man from the village of Woodall in my constituency said that he was totally dissatisfied with what the Minister was proposing. He urged me to support new clause 6. He did not think that everything about that clause was right, but he believed that at least it provided a better arbitration provision than is provided in new clause 4. I have decided to support new clause 6, because the Minister has not convinced me that the arbitration provision in new clause 4 will satisfy tenants on farms in my constituency. Therefore, it is up to the Minister to offer proper arbitration, not involving inbuilt percentages with a maximum or minimum that people can receive. Tenants who have worked hard to build up quotas and are about to retire should be compensated for their time and work.
      Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I wish to raise with the Minister a point which has not so far come into the debate and which concerns the important area—
      1066
      some people may regard it as a grey area—of quota ownership. I refer to a sector of farmers who have various forms of partnership, or share farming or contractual agreements. For many reasons, when they have been drawn up, these agreements have suited landlord and farmer alike, and have helped many young people on to the farming ladder. Few such farmers are registered as landowners or milk producers. In such cases, the name of the landowner is generally used.
      Under the Government clause, how is this category of farmer affected? For example, a farmer can have a contractual agreement, own the cows and machinery, provide the labour, operate and manage separate accounts, make all the decisions, and take all the risks. In one such case, a man I know doubled the milk output from his farm, mostly at his own expense, before quotas were imposed. Since then, the value of his cows has been reduced because of the quotas. What will such people do, and what will happen to them? Surely it cannot be fair or just that such a person, through no fault of his own, should see his assets—in this case, cows—fall considerably in value while, at the same time, the milk produced by those cows has increased as an asset, because the milk quota undoubtedly is an asset. In the case to which I have referred, this asset has increased by about £75,000.
      Unless the Minister can assure me otherwise, under the Government's proposal, as I understand it, such a person may have no share in that asset. He has no share in the value of the farm. How will he find the capital to purchase the quota for his cows in future? Will there be a future for such people? Most hon. Members who have spoken have had in mind a person who will quit farming altogether, but there are those who, as in the case that I have described, will not quit.
      It is difficult for someone in my position, when various suggestions are made on different clauses, to vote against new clause 4. I listened carefully to what my right hon. Friend had to say and I understood in large part what he was driving at. It is important to consider the incomers as well as the outgoers. I regret, as others have, that it was not possible for the CLA and the NFU to do a deal.
      7 pm
      Am I supposed to vote against a clause which has been introduced by my right hon. Friend and which I understand is backed by independent arbitrators which is important to me? I would have been most mistrustful of any arrangement which had not been so backed. Independent arbitration has been the basis so far which has been much prized and valued. Am I to help to kick out new clause 4 and then vote for new clause 6 which I understand has support from hon. Members on both sides of the House?
      Before I decide which clause to vote for I should like to have one assurance at least from my right hon. Friend the Minister of State when he replies. When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State talks about being flexible, I recognise that that can mean many things. He claims that he has already been flexible enough. When right hon. Members on the Front Bench claim that they have been flexible but are willing to consider representations which will make things more flexible, I wonder to what extent that is just a form of words. When my right hon. Friend replies, will he give me some idea of the areas which he thinks are suitable for further representations which will perhaps meet some of the fears that have been expressed today?

      1067
      I want to express just one of the fears. Paragraph 6(5) of the new schedule says:
      "For the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) above a number or amount shall be taken to be substantially greater or less than another only if it exceeds, or, as the case may be, falls short of that other by an amount equal to or greater than 20 per cent. of that other."
      That can be explained in clearer language, although I do not propose to take up time on that tonight. But why do we need to have that qualifying difference to the standard quota? It might be that some of my farmer friends would see that as working to their disadvantage. Would it not be best to throw that out altogether? Might not that be helpful? If not, will my right hon. Friend tell us of some area in future where the Government might be prepared to give so that it will be more amenable to those farmers who at present, from my conversations with them, find it difficult to accept new clause 4 because they find so much of it incomprehensible, and, where it is not incomprehensible, complex?
      I believe that the Government want to be fair. Tomorrow night I shall be meeting members of the farming community in my constituency. I shall certainly explain to them as best I can what the Government say today. But I have in mind also that if that is unsatisfactory I shall have the opportunity at a future date to join my right hon. and hon. Friends who may wish to table an amendment in future. Let us hope that that will not be necessary.
      Mr. Alexander Eadie: Many right hon. and hon. Members here today are probably more knowledgeable than I am about agriculture. But, like my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron), I intervene largely as a result of two constituents who have visited me at my surgery. They are tenant farmers, and they are worried about milk quotas.
      This is a debating Chamber. Having listened to the debate so far, I can to some extent understand the dilemma in which the Government find themselves. But the Government must recognise the changed circumstances. Although the Minister said that he could not obtain agreement and therefore had to take the middle road in his formula, the strength of the debate—at least as I have judged it so far—is that the right hon. Gentleman seems blatantly to be giving more preference to the landlords than to the tenant farmers.
      If there is any doubt about the feeling that exists and the political time bomb that the Government are trying to tackle here, it is probably best illustrated in an NFU document, which says that the strength of feeling amongst tenant farmers on this issue is enormous.
      On Radio 2 this morning I heard somebody say that the Government are beginning to lose touch with the people. I have a shrewd hunch that in coming forward with this new clause and schedule the Government have to some extent lost touch. The Minister has admitted his difficulty in not obtaining agreement between the NFU and the landowners and that the formula is complicated. However, I judge that in that complicated formula he is giving blatant preference to the landowners rather than dealing with the problem of the tenants.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) got it right when he said that percentage is everything. Of course percentage is everything. Based on that are some of the judgments that we can make about future
      1068
      opportunities for farming. If the landowners are favoured too much the opportunities for young people to enter farming in future will to some extent be jeopardised.
      I believe that the Government are treating this important aspect shabbily. We are told that we are doing something on Report which should have been done in Committee and that, if we do not like it, perhaps when it comes back from another place we may have another bite at it. Then the Minister says that he is prepared to consider certain propositions. He is prepared to do that after, as I understand it, the Bill has been driven through the Lobbies tonight. That is a shabby way to deal with the Bill and a most unsatisfactory way for the House of Commons to deal with this important issue.
      I have received a letter from the Scottish NFU on the milk quota landlord-tenant sharing arrangement. It says that the alternative new clause prepared and supported by the Scottish and English NFUs will be available on a certain date—which it gets wrong, but that is not its fault—and urges all Scottish Members to support that alternative new clause. The letter goes on to say:
      "we believe this is essential because of the current intention to put forward legislation for Scotland only in the House of Lords at a later stage in the Bill's progress."
      Again, I think it is rather shabby that the House of Commons is not to have the opportunity to consider that aspect of the legislation. We have to leave it to the other place to decide what is going to happen, and then it will come back here. If the argument is to be about the landlord and tenant arrangements—I do not wish to cast any aspersions on anybody—I have little confidence in the other place being able to come up with legislation that will be beneficial to all concerned.
      Mr. Alexander Pollock: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that a number of people have advocated a greater amount of time to allow wiser counsel to prevail in consultations with the various bodies in an attempt to find a solution. This was very much the point made by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan). Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the terms of the letter written by the Minister of State, Scottish Office, yesterday? He said:
      "The position in Scotland is that, while we accept the principle of waygoing tenants' right to compensation, we have not as yet reached a final view on the arrangements to be introduced for Scottish tenants."
      Surely, against that background, it is useful for us to wait and see what may emerge from the other place.
      Mr. Eadie: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. He has an advantage over me. I have not seen the letter to which he refers. I make no complaint about that, but I think he will have to take on board the point that I have tried to make. Have we more confidence in the House of Commons than in the other place when it comes to being able to deal with the issue of landlords versus tenants? Therefore, although he makes the point that there is difficulty in making arrangements, I will quote the relevant paragraph from the Scottish NFU. which the hon. Gentleman will have had the advantage of seeing. It says:
      "We are extremely pessimistic of the possibility of Scottish legislation providing any significant improvement in the terms of allocation of quota between landlord and tenant, unless the weaknesses of the Government's intentions are adequately exposed in this week's debate."
      First, the weakness in the Government's handling of this legislation is exposed. Secondly, the shabby way in which it is intended to try to drive this new clause through

      1069
      the House of Commons also exposes the Government's weakness. I shall have no inhibitions about opposing new clause 4. If it is said that this is a non-political point and if there is a spirit of neutrality on both sides of the House, I hope that the Government will see fit to withdraw their proposal and allow further consultation to take place. I shall then be able to go back to my constituents and meet my constituency branch of the National Farmers Union and tell them that the Government are serious about wanting to be fair as between landlord and tenant in relation to milk quotas.
      7.15 pm
      Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I shall be quite brief, because many of the arguments have been rehearsed already in this debate. I believe that the method that the Government have chosen to introduce this very important new clause on Report highlights the dangers, injustice and stupidity of adopting this course of action. We are discussing a highly complicated and very sensitive matter—the future livelihood of people who have invested a whole life's work in the dairy industry in this country.
      I would reply to those who criticise me for what I am about to say by stating that this situation has been forced upon the dairy industry, both landowners and tenants, by the Government. The dairy industry as a whole did not seek the imposition of milk quotas, nor did the landowners or the tenant farmers engaged in dairy farming. Surely, on an important matter such as this, we in this House should bring justice to a situation which has been causing increasing anxiety, worry and problems to the dairy industry ever since the imposition of the dairy quota.
      I would say to my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench that the Government can criticise the Opposition, and vice versa, but I give the Opposition credit on this score: when, in the 1970s, I served on the Committee on the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill they introduced an important new clause on the succession of tenancies. We strongly opposed it in Committee, but we did have the opportunity of opposing it, of putting down amendments, in the sure knowledge that we would then have a full debate on Report before the Bill went to the other place, so that all the problems of that new clause and all that went with it could be adequately discussed in the House.
      What is more—this has been highlighted by some of my hon. Friends and by Opposition Members who have spoken in the debate—that gives the outside organisations, the tenant farmers, the NFU, the Tenant Farmers Association, the Country Landowners Association, the valuers and the professional bodies involved, every opportunity of presenting their case, their concerns and their criticism to hon. Members, who then, when we come to the debate, can reach a decision in knowledge and not in ignorance.
      One of the reasons why I shall support my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, South-East (Mr. Hicks) in the Division Lobby tonight is that I believe that he has put forward a more just way of solving this problem than have the Government. There may be criticisms which my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench can level at the new clause but I believe that, on balance, in the words of the NFU brief, he is seeking to deal with "a typical
      1070
      situation" and a 50–50 situation to start with is an equitable one. To start with any less than that is to show bias towards one party as against the other, and I do not believe that the House seeks to do that.
      I make this point very clearly to my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench. I have many tenant dairy farmers in my constituency. I have two or three substantial landowners. The difference between the landowners is very marked. Some are excellent in their dealings with their tenants and provide massive investment in the land. Here we have a situation which could adequately be dealt with under new clause 6. The quota allocation starts on a 50–50 basis, and if there is any dispute between the tenant and the landowner it goes to arbitration and the quota allocation can be reduced from, say, 50 to 20 for the tenant, while the landlord has 80, or vice versa. But it starts on an equitable basis, and if the House is not prepared to provide that it is nonsense to debate this situation tonight.
      I have grown up with the agriculture industry. I have no vested interest. My father's family were auctioneers, valuers and estate agents of 150 years' standing. When one has grown up with the dairy industry in particular, one understands the commitment, not only to the land, but to the job that is being done. It is not just a five-day-a-week job; it is not a job from 9 to 5. When one is dealing with livestock, it is 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 52 weeks a year.
      From the representations that have been made to me by the chairman of the Cheshire NFU, who is a tenant dairy farmer from Lower Withington in my constituency, and the arguments that he and many other tenant farmers have put to me, I believe that there is a case that deserves to be heard. I do not like to have to decide on such an important matter in this House when the first I knew of what the Government were doing was when a new clause was put down last Friday which, sadly, I did not see until Monday of this week.
      Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: I only want to observe that when my hon. Friend saw it on Monday it was incorrect and it was therefore more misleading than ever.
      Mr. Winterton: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. There have been only 72 hours, therefore, in which to hold consultations and reach a decision.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, South-East presented a very fair case. It convinced me far more than did the case presented by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture. My right hon. Friend is not in his place at the moment. He has had a difficult job to do, and many hon. Members are disappointed that the National Farmers Union and the Country Landowners Association have been unable to reach a decision on such an important matter. Would it matter if there were a further delay for two or three months? I do not believe that it would.
      We shall have to vote on Government new clause 4. There will be no opportunity to vote on the merits of new clause 6. I shall vote against my party, not because I think that it is seeking to do wrong, but because it has not taken on board all the views that should have been considered when dealing with such a complex matter. The NFU feels very strongly about this matter. It believes that tenant farmers are very anxious and angry.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes (Mr. Benyon) said that we must not discourage young people

      1071
      from entering the farming industry. Although it is not mentioned in its brief, I am sure that the NFU is more than aware of this. In the late 1970s, during the proceedings on the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 1976, many Conservative Members stressed the need to bring new life and young people into farming. This priority was highlighted time and again. The House should give more than just fair weight and a fair wind to the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, South-East. I shall vote for the spirit of his amendment when I vote against the Government in the Division Lobby.
      Mr. Richard Livsey: Before I deal with new clause 4, I, too, should like to congratulate the Minister of State and his wife, who have done so well in producing their child so soon. I sympathise with the Minister of Agriculture, who has been suffering from influenza this week. Although he is not in the House, I am glad that his voice held out long enough to explain the complexities of new clause 4. It was extraordinary that he had to plead for silence in order to explain its complexities. If he found it difficult to explain the new clause, how are right hon. and hon. Members expected to understand it, and how can those outside Parliament be expected to accept it? The unacceptability of new clause 4 is to be found in the first line of paragraph 6(1) of the new schedule and in the calculation of quota in paragraph 6(4).
      The definitions of standard quota depend on a formula that is to be put forward in a statutory instrument. A formula that is based upon 4,500 litres per cow and upon a stocking rate of 1·9 cows per hectare and which also takes account of rental value of the land, does not stand up to examination. The Minister says that the formula allows for flexibility, but I believe that it is set in concrete. The attraction of new clause 6 is that it is much more open-ended. It provides a much fairer basis for arbitration.
      If the Minister's fonnula were used for a standard quota, in certain circumstances a tenant could be left with almost nothing. The legislation must be seen to be fair. This proposal is not the same as that of February. The formula is inequitable in its approach to the farmer on marginal land when compared with, say, grade 2 land. There are 37,000 dairy farmers in England and Wales. Many of them are farming on marginal land, not on high quality land. The Minister's formula will militate against those farmers who, because they are farming on marginal land, already operate at a disadvantage.
      The Minister referred to the position before the introduction of milk quotas in 1984. Production was then 10 per cent. higher than it is now. This formula means that the tenant's quota will now be even lower. The Minister's arbitration proposals are very restrictive and will probably tie the hands of the arbitrator. The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors is critical of this proposal. A tenant could end up with only 25 per cent. of the quota, which would be inequitable. The hon. Member for Milton Keynes (Mr. Benyon) said that if new clause 6 were agreed to, it would result in a tax on landlords. However, he neglected to say that, because the quota is attached to the value of the landlord's land, its value is greater. Therefore he does not lose to such a great extent.
      Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: The hon. Gentleman may know that in Somerset his party has made great play of the need to retain county council farms in public ownership in order to give opportunities to new
      1072
      entrants, yet he is supporting an amendment that would have the affect of increasing the compensation paid by landlords to existing tenants at the expense of incoming tenants. Therefore he is supporting the erection of a new barrier against new entrants. Is he able to explain this paradox in Liberal thought, or is he happy about a policy that pulls in both directions at the same time?
      Mr. Livsey: No. I am looking for an equitable solution to the problem, for a solution that is fair to everybody. New clause 6 introduces equity and proper arbitration. Every point is taken into account, particularly arbitration in the case of county council smallholdings. We believe that that is a fairer starting point.
      New clause 6 has the support of many members of different parties, and I feel that it is important to have cross-party support on this issue because we shall have to live for a very long time with the solution that is chosen. Governments of different colours will have to live with it and administrate it.
      7.30 pm
      It would be better for the Government to accept a clause acceptable to the broad view of hon. Members with farming interests. If we fail to secure consensus, I do not think that we shall be able to carry the proposal forward. If the Minister is to impose a scheme that leaves the tenants with, on average, 25 per cent. of the quota, he will be presenting a formula that hon. Members will not accept for very long.
      We wish to include Scotland in new clause 6. There have been strong representations from Scotland on the clause, supported by many of my hon. Friends such as my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) and my right hon. and hon. Friends who represent the Borders. New clause 6 is supported as well by my hon. Friends the Members for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) and for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon).
      The worry about incomers has been stated. I have a great deal of sympathy with the arguments about young farmers coming into the industry, the value of the quota and the barrier that that could present to them getting into farming. We need to address ourselves to that problem.
      Mr. Colin Shepherd: Will the hon. Member therefore not just buck the issue but address himself to it now? It is fundamental to the industry's future structure and we cannot leave it to be dealt with on another occasion. Will he deal with it now?
      Mr. Livsey: I shall deal with it. I believe that arrangements should be put in train for the milk marketing boards to have available a reserve of quota to cater for these circumstances. We cannot in this brief discussion go into the details of such a scheme, but I would suggest that in the future we look to such ideas as a means of resolving these problems.
      On the Continent younger farmers can borrow at far lower interest rates than is possible in this country. We need to examine that facility so that quota is available at more preferential rates. This vast subject needs to be opened up on another occasion.
      The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Selwyn Gummer): The hon. Gentleman has mentioned a matter of great importance to the House, which is the problem of possible barriers against new people coming into the dairy industry.

      1073
      Is he suggesting that we should reduce the quota available to those who are already in the industry, in order that the Milk Marketing Board might hand it out to newcomers because that is the only way in which spare quota can be found? Or, is he suggesting that there should be some sort of buying-in arrangement? If so, who would finance that? Does he not accept that the incoming tenant will always have to pay what the outgoing tenant gets?
      Mr. Livsey: Additional quota could be found for entrants into the industry. The situation is not as the right hon. Gentleman has described. I think that it will be possible to provide quota in future.
      We are discussing a reduction of 3 per cent. in the quota under the outgoers scheme. Clearly, people are going out of production. Quota will be available in the future, and some of that could be put in reserve.
      Mr. Maclennan: Does my hon. Friend not also recognise that, if the outgoing tenant is not to receive a fair share of the quota, it is a positive disincentive to him to move out, and consequently make the enterprise available to an incomer?
      Mr. Livsey: I agree with my hon. Friend. I ask the Government, in the interests of the industry, to withdraw new clause 4 to allow us to vote on new clause 6. Hon. Members from both sides have demonstrated a degree of unity on new clause 6, which does not exist on new clause 4.
      Mr. Charles Morrison: Even though I am chairman of the all-party group on population, I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister of State on his happy event.
      Today, we are concerned with surplus milk production. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Sir P. Mills) I think it is regrettable that the National Farmers Union and the Country Landowners Association were unable to reach a reasonable agreement after many weeks of discussion. I appreciate their difficulties, but it seemed that they might have been able to give and take enough to ensure that a reasonable compromise between their varying interests was achieved. Not only would it have been far better if they had done that themselves, but it would have removed the difficult situation now facing my right hon. Friend, whereby he thinks that he has to impose a solution on them.
      At the moment I am not sure that we shall get the right answer to the problem. I wonder why we have not been presented with an enabling clause, rather than precise proposals, which would have allowed further discussion to go ahead on the basis of the proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, South-East (Mr. Hicks).
      Both proposals have their advantages, but it seems to me that, given the short time available for consideration of these proposals, it is likely that we shall not get the right answer tonight.
      I share the concern expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes (Mr. Benyon) about the problems of new tenants. That is one of the reasons why I think it is wrong tonight to come to a final decision. The problems to which he referred are very genuine indeed.
      1074
      I was pleased to hear the comments of my right hon. Friend the Minister about the calculation of the standard quota. He intends to do his best to meet the points made in that regard by the National Farmers Union.
      I am concerned most about compensation. As we know, it is possible for a landlord to obtain 100 per cent. of the compensation. The same should be true for the tenant in certain, albeit rather exceptional, circumstances. Let us take, for example, a tenant farmer on the Wiltshire downs who many years ago took an arable farm and decided to have a Hosier milking system, using a mobile Hosier bay. Let us assume that he wishes to give up. So far as I can see, there is no reason why he should not return to his landlord an arable farm, which is what he took. Every aspect of the dairy investment would have been paid for by the tenant farmer. What conceivable argument could there be to prevent that tenant getting 100 per cent. compensation?
      Mr. Douglas Hogg: In those circumstances the tenant would already have a claim for improvement under the Agricultural Holdings Act 1948.
      Mr. Morrison: That has nothing to do with the quota. If I am wrong, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State will correct me.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern) has whispered in my ear another example of a third generation tenant farmer of a third generation landlord. If the landlord has done nothing to assist the tenant farmer, what conceivable argument is there for that tenant farmer not getting 100 per cent. compensation? Because my right hon. Friend's proposals do not seem able to meet that case, and because on the other hand the proposals of my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, South-East seem to have the flexibility and, indeed, the relative simplicity that are required, as of now I propose to support my hon. Friend's new clause, if I have the opportunity to do so.
      I have not thought this through, but in regard to appeals, might it not be possible to have a system whereby the most exceptional cases of the type that I have described are referred under a special provision to the Agricultural Lands Tribunal? I do not know whether that would cope, but it might be a way round the difficulty that I have described. I should like to think that my right hon. Friend will be able to answer adequately my points, but as of now I doubt it. For that reason I intend to support my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, South-East.
      Mr. Allen McKay: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron), I do not have a brief from the NFU or from the Country Landowners Association. All I have is a letter written on behalf of tenant farmers in my constituency. They think that they are getting a raw deal. They may be third and fourth generation tenant farmers who have put a lifetime of work on farms which have been built up over the generations. Those tenant farmers have worked many hours and have put buildings on the land. At some time they will get compensation for those buildings, but if there is to be compensation for milk quotas, they think that they should get the reward for the work that they have done.
      I accept the argument about the incoming tenant farmer. I recognise the problems about encouraging people to come into the industry. The Government propose to pay

      1075
      compensation to a person who has not even started to put in any effort. They say that they will pay compensation to someone who has done virtually nothing.
      What about the landlords? Who is the landlord? There are many absentee landlords. In my area the landlords used to be the Fitzwilliams, the Straffords, the Wortleys and the Wentworths. They looked after their tenant farmers. The landlords do not live in the area any more. In many cases they are companies owned by shareholders, and they never appear on the land. The landlord's responsibilities are carried out by an agent. My tenant farmers wonder why those absentee landlords should be compensated for the work that the farmer and his family have put in for many years.
      7.45 pm
      Why are we giving compensation for quotas? As I understand it, quotas came into being under an EEC ruling. Because there is over-production of milk, the Government had to decide how much should be produced on each farm, and on which farms it should be produced. The quota is a licence to produce a certain quantity of milk. It is we who are putting a valuation on the quota. A goodwill arrangement is being created. It is not an outgoing quota. I could understand it if compensation was to be paid to a farmer who was being forced out of business, rather than retiring or going out of business voluntarily, because the Government did not want his milk any longer. What we are talking about is goodwill. We should consider the analogy of the goodwill of a shop. Compensation for goodwill goes not to the person who owns the shop but to the person who has built up the business in the shop. I recognise the difficulties which we are running into.
      I am concerned that this will not be the last time this will happen. We are talking about milk production, but what will happen if there is a surplus of potatoes or cereals? Will the EEC say that there must be cuts in production and that we have to introduce quotas for them. If so, the Government will come to the House with legislation and we will have the same argument again.
      This is a classic example of a matter that should have been discussed not on the Floor of the House but in a Special Standing Committee which could have gone into detail on all the pros and cons. When the Minister replies, he may be able to tell us why we have got into difficulty. In the past, when a tenant farmer left his farm, there was an auction and he got his compensation from the materials which he sold and for the buildings which he left on the land. For the first time we are introducing the goodwill aspect into farming. The farmer will be selling not something tangible but a licence which has been issued by the Government to produce a certain quantity of milk. That is the danger in the Government's proposal.
      Mr. Douglas Hogg: It is unfortunate that we are discussing such a complicated matter at this stage of the Bill. In effect, we have before the House a very detailed draft which should be debated as it would be in Committee, but we cannot do that. In essence, we are talking about the principle of the new clauses. Therefore, I share the disquiet expressed by many hon. Members about the way in which we are being asked to consider the matter for the first time.
      The House is considering two principles which are enshrined in the two new clauses put forward separately by my right hon. Friend the Minister and by my hon.
      1076
      Friend the Member for Cornwall, South-East (Mr. Hicks). They are designed to achieve different things. Surely we should now be trying to determine the underlying principle which we should apply to the proposal for compensation. If we can identify the principle that we should apply, we can decide which of the new clauses is more consistent with that principle.
      There are comparable situations from which we can gain guidance and I should like to suggest two. There is the procedure under the Agricultural Holdings Act 1948 whereby the outgoing tenant has a claim for improvement on the termination of the tenancy. Secondly, there is the situation that arises in the context of business tenancies under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, part II, where again a tenant has a claim for compensation on the termination of the tenancy. It is important to determine what the tenant in those two cases is seeking to recover. He is not just seeking to recover a lump sum because he is leaving the premises. He is not entitled to that. He is entitled to claim compensation only for improvement. The principle upon which that is assessed is the betterment of the landlord's premises, the improvement to the landlord's premises which is attributable to the work or the investment of the tenant.
      Mr. Maclennan: I realised from his earlier interventions the line that the hon. Gentleman would follow. He is missing the point that this is not a proper analogy. Effectively, the tenant has freely entered into a contract, a lease, the terms of which and the law surrounding which are clear to him. The situation is now different. The creation of quota is the creation of an asset, and if the owner of the asset is not properly compensated as a result of what the Government are doing, the Government are effectively expropriating the tenant or, for that matter, the proprietor.
      Mr. Hogg: I do not agree, for two reasons, one general and one specific. My general reason is that this is not a capital asset in the conventional sense. It is much more analogous to the possession of a shop which has a specific planning use prescribed for it which is more advantageous than another kind of planning use. In any event, if the hon. Gentleman looks at the Agricultural Holdings Act which was introduced by the Labour Government in which he was a Minister, he will see that the same system of betterment was applied to improvements carried out prior to 1968. That of course is analogous to the present situation.
      We should try to determine the relevant principle, and it seems to me that the relevant principle, deduced from comparable situations, is that the tenant has a right to claim compensation to the extent that his work and his investment has improved the assets of the landlord. I do not accept that the tenant has a right to claim compensation or financial recognition or a lump sum beyond the level of that recognition. If one applies that principle lo the two new clauses, I suggest that one will see that the Government's new clause is preferable.
      New clause 6 is advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, South-East and is not directed towards providing financial recognition for betterment. It is doing something else. It is saying that an outgoing tenant has some form of proprietorial interest in milk quota irrespective of the contribution that he has made to improve the landlord's asset. I do not accept that analysis.

      1077
      New clause 6 also had the pragmatic disadvantage mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes (Mr. Benyon) and by the Minister that, if we adopt new clause 6, we are taking capital out of agriculture and are likely to impose a burden on incoming tenants. That is a pragmatic disadvantage, although it is not as serious as the disadvantage of principle to which I have referred.
      Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: My hon. Friend has overlooked the point that was also overlooked by the Country Landowners Association. There is quota on a farm that has quota only because the tenant was producing milk on the crucial date. If he had not been producing milk on that crucial date, there would be no quota and the owner of the land could not let it to anybody or take it in hand and produce milk on it. Secondly, the quantum of that quota is related to what the tenant was producing in the base year. It is the tenant who creates the quota, not the landlord. It is true that it could be said that it could not be done without the landlord, but it is also true that the tenant could not have done it if his parents had not given birth to him. It is the tenant who creates this valuable, negotiable, rentable and saleable asset.
      Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend is not wholly right. Both parties created the asset.
      Mr. Nicholas Winterton: No—the Government created the asset.
      Mr. Hogg: Many parties created the asset.
      Mr. Winterton: No, the Government.
      Mr. Hogg: The Government created the asset in one sense and the tenant created it in the sense put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) and the landlord created it in yet a third sense. It is a fact of history which came about through a combination of circumstances. We still have to analyse the principle on which the compensation is recoverable. I believe that the principle is betterment and enhancement. That is a difference of principle between us and reasonable men can differ about that. We need to identify why we differ about that and I submit it is because our purpose and objective are different. If that is right, one turns to the Government's proposal.
      I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Sir P. Mills) that there are problems about the Government's new clause 4. I agree with him that the new clause does not accord sufficient recognition when dealing with standard quota to the problems of marginal land, and to the problems that would flow from low input farming—a policy often advocated by Ministers.
      I put those criticisms to the Minister, but he is right in introducing a clause that is designed to confine compensation primarily to betterment and enhancement over and above what would otherwise be the case. That is the correct approach. I recognise that a number of my hon. Friends do not agree with me, but that is perfectly understandable because in a sense we are debating a principle. Once the principle of betterment is accepted, the Government's new clause 4 is to be preferred to that of my hon. Friend.
      Dr. Roger Thomas: When the milk quotas were introduced two years ago, three of the areas
      1078
      hardest hit were south-west Wales, Cornwall and Devon. But that is not the reason why the farmers of south-west Wales are disenchanted with clause 4 and happy with clause 6. The hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris), in an intervention, said that this matter should be before the House in the form of an entirely new Bill and go through all stages, especially Committee, when the nuts and bolts and intricacies of the matter could be examined in far greater detail.
      It is a great disservice to the farming community, especially to tenant farmers, that this matter has been brought in at the tail end of an important Bill. Many hon. Members wish to participate in the debate. We are also trying to get the Bill through in a hurry. Many of those who spoke from the Government Benches tried to extricate the Minister from the hole that he has been digging for himself. After the Minister of State has replied, there should be some means to enable us to wipe out what has happened tonight.
      This is an important debate. It may have been repetitious, but that has been because the same valid points have been raised. Time and again hon. Members have pointed to the advantages of new clause 6 and the disadvantages of new clause 4.
      8 pm
      I represent a dairy farming area, where there are many marginal farms. Marginal farms will do particularly badly out of the complex regulations involved in new clause 4. We should stick to the principles of new clause 6. At least that starts from a 50–50 base line for the tenant and landlord. From there, the figure could move up or down according to arbitration. New clause 6 has been criticised on the ground that arbitration will take a long time and that many cases would have to go for adjudication. But surely that would be excellent. After all, there would then, at the end of the day, be fairness.
      I hope that the Minister will recognise that hon. Members on both sides of the House are unhappy. The feelings of the farming fraternity have filtered through to the House in an almost unprecedented manner. However, I do not want to detain the House, as the Opposition feel that there are many other important provisions that should be debated at length. I refer, in particular, to new clause 1 which mentions a consumers' committee to look after the interests of the consumer. That is an important new clause, and we would like to reach it.
      I come from an area that has suffered greatly from milk quotas, and we do not wish to suffer any more. I make one party political point. When the hon. Member for Ynys Mon (Mr. Best) speaks, he will be able to confirm that the Conservative party's popularity plummeted in April 1984. If new clause 4 is virtually steamrollered through the House tonight, so late in the passage of the Bill, the Conservative party will see its support virtually destroyed in rural areas.
      Mr. Corrie: I am well aware that the new clauses and the schedule do not cover Scotland, but I am sure that they will be used as the basis for any legislation that comes up in the other place. I am equally sure that, because of EEC legislation, Scottish provisions could not be very different, or there would soon be complaints from English farmers that might end up in the European Court. I know that my colleagues in the Scottish Office have been desperately trying to obtain some agreement between the SLF and the

      1079
      NFU in Scotland, but have not yet succeeded. I hope that they will continue to discuss such matters with them in the hope of reaching some agreement.
      My right hon. Friend the Minister cleared up several points that had been worrying me, and I thank him for that. The sad thing about the debate is that if we had had time to thrash out the schedule in Committee we could probably have reached a consensus. However, if my right hon. Friend the Minister really meant it when he said that his mind was still open, it may yet be possible to improve the schedule slightly in the other place.
      Mr. John Home Robertson: How?
      Mr. Corrie: I assume that it is possible to do something in the other place, and I look forward to seeing what happens there.
      Mr. Home Robertson: Does the hon. Gentleman want a peerage?
      Mr. Corrie: No, I want to talk about the Bill. Is the hon. Gentleman offering a peerage?
      We all want a fair and reasonable divide between landlord and tenant, depending on the input from each party. I agree that that should not be based on any percentage figure. In any discussions, no two cases will be the same. The mess that we find ourselves in shows what happens when one tampers with production. As has been said, we may have to face the same problems over cereals. Quotas have undoubtedly created a new asset. Hard-pressed farmers will see a little relief as they go out of farming if they can make use of this compensation. I assume that if there were a new EEC outgoers scheme legislation would be needed to cover that in the case of any tenant farmers going out of milk production, but not out of the farm. However, I shall not go into that, as I would be out of order if I were to do so.
      At present a tenant has no rights whatever, and the landlord has a 100 per cent. right to the quota compensation. I cannot agree with all my hon. Friends, as I believe that it would be unfair for either side to obtain 100 per cent. compensation. It does not matter how much the tenant has put into the land. Indeed, many tenants have put in an enormous amount of capital. But the landlord has still provided the land on which he farms. The problem raised by the new clauses and the schedule is that we are trying to find a basis of negotiation for possibly hundreds of completely different cases. It is extremely difficult to sort out hectarage and litreage production on a wide variety of land types and to come out with a fair result, especially when the standard quota is as high as 4,500 litres.
      Very few of the farmers in marginal land areas—this is true of my area—will get anywhere near excess quotas. Thus, I feel that the basis of the standard quota and excess is perhaps not the right starting point. I shall cite three cases from my constituency, where each of the farmers has 700,000 litres of quota. Farmer A has 100 pedigree cows. He feeds them hard, because he wants good pedigrees, and he averages about 7,000 litres. Farmer B farms well, but traditionally. He never forces his cows, and averages about 5,000 litres with 140 cows. Farmer C has a hard marginal farm, where he raises beef calves from his dairy side. He runs 155 cows, but he manages an output of only about 4,500 litres. Farmers B and C are not bad farmers. They are good, traditional
      1080
      farmers on the sort of land that they are farming, yet the possible compensation differences between the three farmers could be enormous.
      Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Has my hon. Friend noticed that the difference between farmers B and C is less than the 20 per cent., which under the Minister's formula, would trigger a differential standard yield?
      Mr. Corrie: If a fanner was down to 20 per cent. below those levels, he probably should not be farming anyway. His output per hectare would not make the unit viable.
      Mr. Pollock: My hon. Friend will recall that our right hon. and noble Friend the Minister of State, Scottish Office, has implied that the Scottish arrangements have yet to be finalised. In the light of the examples that my hon. Friend is giving the House, does he believe that there is any possibility that tenant farmers in Scotland will benefit beyond the two thirds currently being made available in England and Wales?
      Mr. Corrie: I cannot say what will happen in the other place, but if any legislation passed by this House benefited farmers in Scotland more than those in England, I believe that we might be taken to court under EEC legislation for enacting unfair legislation. I may be wrong about that, and if so perhaps my right hon. Friend the Minister will correct me at the end of the debate.
      In 1983–84 a young farmer took over a tenancy partnership with a landlord in the constituency. The landlord had no interest whatever in putting a dairy unit on that farm. He said that the young man could go ahead if he wanted to. The young man spent between £70,000 and £80,000 on putting up buildings, installing equipment, and erecting a dairy. He was lucky enough to get a good quota. He is bound to go out of that farm in 1994. Last Thursday a solicitor's letter arrived saying that, although the landlord had not previously been interested in that farm's milk output, under legislation that might come forward now he would, of course, claim his compensation. That young man who invested £80,000 on the assumption that he would ultimately get some return on it will be much worse off when the time comes. Does my right hon. Friend think that the present legislation will give that young man a fair return on the money that he invested? My right hon. Friend said earlier that the maximum that could be obtained was probably about 66 per cent.
      I accept that at the end of a tenancy the landlord may find that he gets a bill for a considerable sum of money, and £30,000 has been mentioned. In my area, where there are big dairy farms, it would be much more than that. At that point he has three choices. He can go out of dairy farming, pass on that cost to the incoming tenant, which would be a heavy burden, or charge the tenant a higher rent to cover the interest on the quota that he had bought out. There is no doubt that the land value is increased as long as the quota stays with the land, so that most landlords would want to keep the quota with the land.
      I am not happy with what has come out of tonight's debate. I think that we have it so nearly right that, with proper discussion, we could have got something that pleased every hon. Member.
      I wish to raise two small points. First, I understand that if a tenant buys out quota, 100 per cent. of that will be his when he goes out and the landlord will not have access to

      1081
      any of it. Secondly, I understand that if there is no statutory successor there is no compensation for the estate. I feel that that is wrong. If a man borrows a lot of money, puts it into a tenant farm, builds up the dairy herd and his unit and then dies, his dependants find that there is no compensation for what he has done, and this makes an enormous difference to his estate in the final reckoning.
      The real sadness, as has been said, is that the organisations in agriculture outside the House could not agree among themselves and that it has been necessary to introduce legislation at all. Once again the legislators have to take the difficult decisions and be got at from both sides because they cannot agree among themselves.
      Dr. Marek: If anything can be learnt from today's debate, it is that the subject has been introduced too late on Report. It should have been introduced in Committee, where we would have been able to intervene in each other's speeches more often, to speak more than once and to challenge or test the hypotheses that have been put forward. The hypotheses have been interesting and some of the thoughts, speeches and points in the debate have taxed my mind, and I shall have to think about them very carefully.
      I am not sure whether I am completely right in what I am about to say. Indeed, I am not sure whether hon. Members who have spoken have been completely right in their points all the time. The tenor of the debate has been that new clause 4 is not correct, that the Government have not got it right and that something ought to be done about it. I hope that the Government will take this on board as many hon. Members have made the point.
      If the Government are sincere in trying to do their best for industry and to get general agreement between the CLA and the NFU, they will take this seriously. If, on the other hand, the Government are seeking to serve their own people—those who belong to the CLA and those landowners who sometimes do not have to do anything for a living—they will do nothing; they will leave it alone and try to use their majority to force through the new clause.
      The hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) made a series of interesting points. I thought that, by and large, he was wrong, especially when he talked about the quota not being a capital asset. I think that it is a capital asset, although not in the way that one would normally imagine. The hon. Gentleman gave an example about planning. If planning permission is granted by a council, it is not always given to the landlord of the building; sometimes it is made personal or there is a section 52 agreement. One can give other examples. When intoxicating liquor is sold in a public house, one person is licensed to sell it and the licence is granted to him, not to the public house or the company or brewery that owns the public house. One can then argue whether that capital asset falls into one category or another.
      I believe that in 1984 the Government created a capital asset to be divided between the landlord and the tenant. There is no a priori reason why this should be given to the landlord as opposed to the tenant or to the tenant as opposed to the landlord. Hon. Members may imagine that I am going to argue for a 50–50 distribution and then
      1082
      consider the individual cases and determine them in the light of the circumstances of each case. Indeed, that is what I am going to do.
      The Secretary of State said that some tenants would get up to 66 per cent. of the benefit of the quota. I find that difficult to believe. When the fraction of the tenant's standard quota is being worked out, somewhere in the denominator of that fraction will be the rental value of the land that is being used for dairy cows. That rental value will be very high, thus making the fraction very small. I do not believe that tenants will get up to 66 per cent., and, judging by what other hon. Members have said, I do not think there is much confidence in the Minister's argument.
      8.15 pm
      The argument is very complicated, and the Minister has tidied up all sorts of arithmetic, figures and divisions. I believe that he places a value in the land itself. It is at this point that I believe a political difference arises between Conservative and Opposition Members. In my view, there ought not to be a value in the land. There ought to be a value in the land if it is being used properly, and I hope that some Conservative Members can agree on that. If a landlord is misusing land or not using it at all, no benefit should accrue to the landlord.
      Some Conservative Members attributed charitable motives to the Government and said that they were trying to do a good job, but the Government must prove this. I am a little more cynical. I think that the Government are trying to protect their vested interests and the landowners—in particular, those who do not use their land at all.
      The hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Morrison) gave one excellent example, and I am going to give another. If a landowner—he need not be a member of the CLA; it could be some finance house in the City—happened to own an old quarry which had been filled up with rubbish with a layer of top soil, so that it was completely useless, and rented the land to a tenant farmer to see what he could do with it, and if that tenant farmer built up his dairy herd and put the land into good repair, then having paid for all the buildings and equipment, I submit he ought on retirement to have 100 per cent. of the quota. I cannot see any reason why he should not have 100 per cent.
      Equally, if a landowner had a farm that was a going concern, composed of grade 1, grade 2 land, with no problems, and he provided the cows—I know that this is a little hypothetical and not quite how things are usually done, but I am talking in extremes, and most cases fall between the extremes—and everything else for the tenant, who did nothing but take income from rent, the tenant should have no part of the quota at the end of the day because the quota would have been supplied by the landlord. The average situation is somewhere between the two, and equity is that the division should be 50–50. If the landlord and the tenant each puts in 50 per cent., however one defines it—and here the CLA and the NFU should be considered together—then each should get 50 per cent., but that is not the effect of the new clause.
      A specious argument was put forward by the hon. Member for Milton Keynes (Mr. Benyon). He said that something extra should be given to the landlord, because a tenant farmer on retirement takes money out of the industry. On the other hand, one can have a landlord who says, "I have had my income from all these tenant farmers and now I am going to retire to the south of France," and

      1083
      he, too, moves out of the industry. If there is to be equity in these matters, what is good for one is good for the other. There can be arguments both ways.
      Next there is the problem of new entrants with which the Government must deal. I can see nothing in the Bill that will help that situation. That will require the provision of money.
      We need more time, although not too much, because tenant farmers are retiring all the time. The Government should withdraw the new clause. There should be urgent discussions between the CLA and the NFU in order to reach agreement and to make sure that, when the new clause is reinserted in another place, it will generally be seen to be fair to the tenant farmer and to the landlord. The new clause does not achieve that. Unless I get an assurance from the Government, I intend to vote against the new clause.
      Mr. Christopher Hawkins: My right hon. Friend has been told that his formula is too complex, but in my view it is far too simple. Several hon. Members have mentioned a number of other factors that should be introduced when deciding on compensation, but introducing them would inevitably make the formula more complex.
      At present, it is nothing more or less than a valuation formula which compares the proportion of the total value of the farm that is due to the tenant's efforts with the proportion due to the assets of the owner. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) that that is a sound basis for the new clause. The formula may be standard and simple, and it may give a rough and ready breakdown of the contributions of the landlord and tenant to the value of the farm, but under the proposed formula that can only be done well on average, as the performance of tenants is compared with an average yield, with no regard to the difficulty of achieving that yield in different areas.
      The standard quota of 4,500 litres per cow may be achieved in the lush pastures near this building, with very little effort indeed, but in High Peak, which my right hon. Friend has visited recently, a tenant might have to be almost superhuman to achieve such a yield, given the quality of the land, the height above sea level and the climate.
      It is unfair that the standard quota does not vary from area to area. It should at least be lower in the upland areas. That should be considered. If the new clause is supported, could not a separate figure be included in the statutory instrument for upland areas, marginal land and other areas? If not, I hope that the other place will make changes along these lines.
      Mr. D. E. Thomas: This debate has clearly shown the disastrous consequences of the quota system in general. It has also demonstrated the problems that arise within the agriculture industry when this House intervenes because the parties—in this case the landlords and the tenants—have been unable to reach agreement.
      It is unfortunate that there has been a failure of agreement. I am not blaming the Department, because I am sure that it wished that such agreement had taken place in England and Wales. However, we must look at the ways in which the Government have tried to intervene in a system that has been created by the European Community
      1084
      and by the Government's implementation of the quota system. We must look at that, not only for its immediate effects on the dairy sector, but because of its potential effect if quotas are to be introduced into other sectors of the industry.
      In the area that I represent, I am particularly concerned about the sheepmeat sector. Similarly, other sectors of the industry could be subject to quotas. If we set out the relationship between landlord and tenant on the basis that the Minister is proposing, we shall create a precedent for the quota system in other sectors of the industry Fcr those reasons, we must firmly reject, as nearly all hon. Members who have spoken have done, the scheme proposed by the Minister.
      I endorse what other hen. Members have said about the timing of the presentation of the new clause. After all, the Standing Committee discussed this subject for a long time, and there was plenty of opportunity then for the Government to introduce a new clause, which we could have debated in full. I do not want to create any acrimony, because we had an extremely harmonious Standing Committee—perhaps too harmonious, but the fact that such a new clause was not introduced in Committee casts aspersions on that Committee.
      The fact that a tenant milk producer has no right over the quota once he ceases milk production is illogical. At present, the entire capita] value rests with the landlord. That illogicality has arisen because of the way in which the quota has become a transferable commodity.
      There has been some discussion about what the quota can be compared with. Should it be compared with a mineral right, or with a form of planning permission? I prefer to see it as a unique creation of the nature of the quota system itself. When a quota has become an exchangeable commodity and a value in itself, that must obviously create serious problems for those whose only value is derived from production.
      We are all agreed, as are the parties outside the House, that it is unsatisfactory that a tenant milk producer should have no control over quota at the end of a period of agricultural operation. But the Minister's proposal is equally unsatisfactory. Rather than giving the tenant no control at all, the formula is totally weighted against the tenant. Indeed, it is weighted to a new concept in landlord-tenant relationships. The normal concept, as I understand it, is that the tenancy is based on the usual forms of good husbandry and on the existing legislation covering landlord-tenant relationships, under which the tenant is expected to reach a certain standard of agricultural production. Nowhere is this related to a standard of production that is reasonably to be expected over an annual period. This is a new concept—the concept of a standard quota and a level of production that a tenant producer ought to have achieved.
      Although the Minister has explained the history of it, it is unsatisfactory that a concept devised by valuers should become an obligation on tenants. It is a totally artificial concept.
      I am particularly concerned about this concept as it will apply to the marginal dairy areas. The Minister has not addressed himself sufficiently to this issue. In such areas he allows a variation of the standard quota level if production can be expected to differ by more than 20 per cent. from the norm. That again is an arbitrary figure. What are we to do—I know that Conservative Members

      1085
      agree with this—with the huge numbers of producers who fall between the norm and 20 per cent.? The Minister must address himself to that issue.
      Increasingly, there is serious debate within the agriculture industry and this House about a lower intensity system of production. As we move towards the increasing costs of concentrates and inputs, any system in agriculture should not discriminate against those who are working for a low intensity system, yet a competent tenant farmer with a low intensity system of milk production will be discriminated against under the present arrangements. If we are looking to move towards more organic and low input farming, this is the last thing that we should institutionalise in any system of milk quota. I ask the Minister to reconsider this, because it seems to me a major anomaly in his proposals.
      In the new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Cornwall, South-East (Mr. Hicks) we at least have a basis which is more equitable, but even this does not go far enough. I am sure that the Minister will be able to produce technical reasons why what is proposed is not entirely acceptable to him. If so, that is a much clearer argument for him, even at this late hour of 8.29 pm, to withdraw his amendments and reconsider them. After all, if he was able to bring forward his revised proposals at such a late stage, surely it is possible for him to withdraw his clause and give us the opportunity to consult further, so as to achieve a more equitable scheme on the lines of the simpler one proposed in new clause 6. Under this new clause there is no arbitrary classification, so it is a much fairer system for both landlord and tenant.
      8.30 pm
      This debate is typical of the history of the implementation of the milk quota system. From its inception we have had anomalies, and we still have them. We still have individual farmers who do not have milk quotas because they were not in production on day one, although they have invested a massive amount. We have anomalies between areas, and between marginal producers and those who farm better quality land. The whole business of quotas is an example of how not to pursue our agricultural policy. We must work to limit production, but not by methods such as this.
      Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for grasping the nettle and deciding to legislate. It had become apparent that without that impetus agreement at national level between the National Farmers' Union and the Country Landowners Association was unreachable. If anyone doubts that, he has only to read the national brief sent to Members by the CLA, in which it referred to the proposal as a capital levy and said that nothing should be paid to tenants except under a few very limited conditions. Without the impetus of the knowledge that the Minister had decided to legislate, agreement was out of reach because there was no incentive for the CLA to reach it. Hence my congratulations.
      I believe, however, that the time has now come, when this debate reaches its end, when my right hon. Friend should seek your leave, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and that of the House to adjourn this debate for two weeks. I shall explain why. As recently as 11 o'clock last Thursday, his own private office was unable to tell hon. Members when the Minister's amendments and new clauses would appear
      1086
      on the Order Paper. Those who had to go down to their constituencies early on Friday morning, as many of us with large constituencies have to, had to leave the House that week not knowing the Minister's proposals. I make no complaint of that. My complaint is that, since the amendments and new clauses were, in effect, being seen by those hon. Members for the first time this Monday, it was wholly unreasonable to expect us to legislate on that basis only two days later. That then became three days later.
      The programme pressures which were impelling the Minister into doing that and which were not of his making have now eased dramatically. There must have been a very large slot in both Houses allocated to the Shops Bill, and with the defeat of that on Monday the pressure ought to be off my right hon. Friend. It must be crystal clear to him that, despite his best endeavours, he has not yet got it right in a number of respects.
      It is not enough to look at the elegance of the formula. One has to anticipate its consequences. They are that the representative tenant in milk production will get only about 25 per cent. of the value of the quota. If that is so, then in the judgment of many Members my right hon. Friend has got his formula wrong.
      It is not enough just to fiddle the standard yield, in which determination the House can play only a trivial part, because it is to be done by negative resolution statutory instruments. That means that it is unamendable. We know that there are many statutory instruments against which the House wishes to pray for which there is no time or which, when the evening comes, overrun. So if it is to be done by statutory instrument at all, it should be done by the affirmative resolution procedure so that there has to be a debate. Under the formula which my right hon. Friend has written into his new schedule, however, whatever one does to the standard yield one still cannot get a high enough percentage for the tenant where that is the just and proper thing to do.
      I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes (Mr. Benyon) momentarily appeared in the House, satisfied himself with his own argument and disappeared, because it revealed the gaping hole in the CLA case, which is this: without the tenant's milk production on the critical date there would have been no quota. It was the tenant in milk production who created that quota. That is what the CLA at national level—as opposed to local level in Devon and doubtless in many other counties—has failed or refused to recognise.
      I hope that he did not mean it, but my right hon. Friend certainly gave the impression that he thought that the National Farmers Union was careless of the interests of new entrants. That is not my experience of the National Farmers Union at Devon county level—and it is the largest branch in the country. In discussion with members about milk quotas, it recommended that, when we brought in a system of transferring quotas, 10 per cent. of the quota transferred should be taken into a pool specifically designed for hardship cases and new entrants. That is the answer to the false dilemma put by my hon. Friend the Minister of State when he challenged the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey) to say where he would get the spare quota from. Devon county has already suggested where it should come from. So have many other NFU branches. They say that it should come from the 10 per cent. tax on transfer of quota.

      1087
      This shows that the Devon county branch and, I am sure, many other branches of the NFU have given thought to the interests of new entrants. I am glad to say that it demonstrates that the Minister's assumption that the National Farmers Union is careless of the interests of new entrants is poorly substantiated by the facts.
      Another fallacy put out by my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes is that substantial compensation for milk-producing tenants will force landlords to take the land in hand. I would have thought that the logic was the exact opposite, that if they had to pay the compensation if they took it in hand, and could pass the duty of paying the compensation on to a new tenant if they get it again, then the larger the compensation to be paid the greater the incentive to the landlord to relet rather than to take it in hand. I wish that my hon. Friend were here because it is only fair that he should have the opportunity to answer the accusation that there is a gaping hole in his logic. However, it is not my fault that he is not with us.
      I intervened in the speech of my right hon. Friend the Minister to ask—and he gave no satisfactory reply—why a 20 per cent. threshold should be considered right now when a 15 per cent. threshold was considered right under the milk quota regulations for triggering the special hardship quota because of, for example, the sickness of animals, exceptionally bad weather, the illness of the farmer or other specific grounds. Presumably my right hon. Friend must have considered 15 per cent. to be right because he wrote it into the regulations.
      Many of us are extremely apprehensive about the yawning gap whereby the arbitrators will be debarred from arbitrating, even on the basis of my right hon. Friend's formula. He was right to say that I have pressed on him the designing of a formula that would achieve, as far as possible, consistency in arbitration, throughout the United Kingdom. Unless there is consistency, by definition there will be injustices. New clause 6, which is the considered opinion of the NFU—which has seen, albeit at very short notice, the Minister's new schedule—provides the fairest approach.
      None of those who have signed their name to new clause 6 claims that it is perfect. There is a great deal in my right hon. Friend's new clause that could sensibly be attached in another place to the end of new clause 6. Alternatively, my right hon. Friend could accept my advice and ask permission of the Chair and the House to adjourn the debate for a fortnight when it is concluded—not now—and then bring forward a new amendment. It would be sensible to attach to new clause 6 many of the provisions relating to sub-tenancies, Crown land and many other matters that are so excellently drafted in the Government's new clause.
      The trouble is that, for procedural reasons, if we deal with the matter tonight—which I do not advise—either new clause 4 must be withdrawn or it must be defeated in the Lobby because otherwise we shall not have the opportunity to put the question on new clause 6.
      I hope that I have demonstrated to my right hon. Friend that hon. Members are trying to be reasonable. They are trying to understand his difficulties as well as the difficulties of the industry. They give him due credit for grasping the nettle and deciding to legislate in the Bill—something for which many of my constituents have asked—and avoid delay so that people do not go out of
      1088
      the industry deprived of all compensation. However, it is even more important to get this right than it is to deal with it three weeks earlier or three weeks later.
      My substantive plea to my right hon. Friend is that now that the events of Monday have given the Government the opportunity to take that course—I made this point on the business statement earlier this week, so it should come as no surprise—the Bill should be postponed so that he can think about what will have been said by the close of the debate, discuss it with the bodies with which he tells us he has been in deep discussion, and come up with the best answer and with a procedure that will he as near analagous as circumstances permit to our having had a Committee stage and then a Report stage. I believe that that is in everybody's interests, including those of the Government.
      8.45 pm
      Mr. Anthony Nelson: I, like other hon. Members, have tried to follow the debate closely. I have sought to divine the preferable course of action and decide whether to support new clause 4 or new clause 6. I have found it exceedingly difficult to decide exactly what my course should be. I see arguments both ways. I do not doubt the intention of the signatories to either new clause to seek an equitable and durable solution that will gain the greatest credence and support on both sides of the House.
      As many hon. Members have said, my right hon. Friend was placed in an extremely difficult dilemma which, to some extent, has presaged the difficult time problem with which the House is faced. My right hon. Friend was fair in writing to a number of hon. Members with a particular interest in these matters, especially those with dairy farmers in their constituencies, setting out his intentions before the detail of the new clause was tabled. My right hon. Friend has sought to recognise a legitimate interest of landlords as the providers of the constituent part of the asset.
      As the debate progressed, I have found myself considering those arguments in relation to particular cases in my constituency, where many dairy farmers, tenant farmers and landlords have been to see me on this matter. I have reached the conclusion that there is a case for the land to be considered part of the asset, even though largely I accept that the asset is wholly derived from the windfall of the imposition of quotas. Indeed, we are talking about an artificiality built upon an artificiality. The inevitable implication will be both capricious and inequitable. The drafting of any new clause must be oriented towards reducing to the minimum the capricious nature of that impact and the inequities that will result.
      Although I recognise that the asset derives largely from the imposition of the quota system, I am bound also to consider the many cases in my constituency where the landlord provides the land. That land is suitable for dairy farming, has always been farmed in that way and is let on the basis that it will be farmed as dairy land. I find it difficult to accept that such a landlord might not he entitled to any proportion of the quota under the terms of new clause 6. Unless he had provided assets such as machinery, buildings and so on, he might be deprived of any interest. Therefore, I see strong arguments in favour of the Government's new clause.
      I am also influenced by the problems of newcomers, about whom much has been said. I have conflicting views because I recognise that new clause 6 may have a more

      1089
      prejudicial impact on newcomers than new clause 4. On the other hand, I must question the extent to which I should be worried about that. The problems that newcomers will face, which undoubtedly will be considerable, are a product of all the anomalies, artificialities, quota and apportionment. At the end of the day, what is wrong is not the impact on the newcomer because it will cost him a great deal. The problems are not the result of the new clause; they are the result of the imposition of the quota system. It is an inevitable consequence, and we must face the fact that there will be difficulties.
      One difficulty will be that of the incomers. My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) mentioned ways of solving the problem. Perhaps in time, when quotas prove not to be immortal, those problems will go away. I would prefer not to be faced with the decision this evening as to what course to follow.
      If possible, we should have a new clause 5 which would find some common ground, for I fear that there will be difficulties with the Government's new clause as well as with new clause 6. I am especially worried about the way in which the tenant's fraction has been defined. The fact that it will be assessed principally on the basis of the marginal improvement in rent will not necessarily reflect equity, for the basic rent which a tenant pays may not be a precise definition of the extent to which, at any moment, the landlord has put assets in or has an interest in the quota and the tenant has at the same time. Therefore, any appreciation of the rent and any formula based on that appreciation may be wholly capricious in determining what I assess will be the most important element of the compensation which the tenant will receive—that is, the tenant's fraction of the standard quota—apart from consideration of excess, which may have a capricious and similarly inequitable impact.
      My right hon. Friend will be the first to accept that there will be problems with the imposition of the proposal. Therefore, I am driven to the conclusion that there are faults with new clause 4. Although it has much to commend it, there are problems with new clause 6, and that is why I would prefer to adopt the course of action described by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton. A little more time should be given to hon. Members like me to obtain more representation instead of having to rely on the hurried phone calls and telegrams which I have received from my dairy tenant and landowning constituents. There should be more sober and careful assessment of the way forward.
      Knowing the way in which Governments work, I suspect that that is not on the cards. Ministers want to get their business through, and if they have to give way tonight they will see it as a defeat or a concession to the House, or bringing into doubt a central element of the Bill. They should not see it in that way. The Bill might enjoy the good will of many hon. Members later if we had more time and if some of our fears could be satisfied, which they have not been this afternoon.
      For that reason, I hope that my right hon. Friends will' accept the course of action urged upon them. If they fail to do so—this may be an incentive for them to do so—I shall be driven to the conclusion that I should resist new clause 4 and should give preference to new clause 6. But that would be my fallback position against my preference that the Government should defer this matter.
      Sir John Farr: I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) will forgive me if I do not follow him too exactly. I wish to speak more broadly on new clause 6.
      I was disappointed with the arguments of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in pointing out why he did not think this was an especially good new clause. He said that the supply of tenants might dry up if the incoming tenant's share of the quota became larger, as would be the case if our new clause were accepted. I assure my right hon. Friend that the supply of incoming tenants will never dry up.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) said that, in addition, there would be a 10 per cent. pool, or levy, for special hardship cases for incoming tenants. That will be available to help to ease the financial problems of an incoming tenant. I am far more concerned with our new clause, which broadly lays down that the quota should be divided 50–50 and that the outgoing tenant has proper recognition of the money, effort and the lifetime of work that he has put into the enterprise that he will be leaving. That is one reason for new clause 6.
      I am suspicious of the new clause, because it talks about a standard quota. It takes up seven and a half pages of the Amendment Paper and is extremely complex. The new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, South-East (Mr. Hicks) and others is much simpler. It covers just more than one page, and it works on the basis of a 50–50 split, which we believe is an equitable basis. I am told that when one has mastered the standard quota system laid down by the Government the value to be attributed to the tenant in many cases could be only 25 per cent. That will often produce cases of deliberate and unacceptable hardship and unfairness.
      I join my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton in calling for a chance to talk about the proposal. My hon. Friend has been lucky enough to receive representations from his constituents. My constituents are not fully aware of the consequences of what the Government are trying to do. By telephoning the NFU and the CLA today, I have obtained their views on the Government's proposals and new clause 6. I see no hurry for this measure. We have all the time in the world now that the Shops Bill has fallen by the wayside, and the right and proper way for a good, cautious, sensible Conservative Minister to proceed is to get a response from the people engaged in the industry and to allow Members of Parliament to receive representations from their constituents. He could then proceed in a more cautious and sensible way.
      My right hon. Friend is proposing to impose upon the industry this frightful new additional complexity of a standard quota. I understand that it is the production level that an efficient producer should have reached, yet the figures on which standard production levels are based are not included in the schedule. The schedule calls for the restriction of a tenant's share of standard quota to the ratio of the rental value of his improvements to the rental value of the farm. This may often give the tenant only 15 to 20 per cent. of the average standard quota. Even if the tenant was solely responsible for building up the quota, it could often be little higher than 30 or 40 per cent.
      I have heard of several cases of considerable unfairness. One is a small to medium specialist dairy holding with buildings, most of which are provided by the landlord, where the tenant practises an efficient, low-cost forage

      1091
      system with output below the standard quota. This would qualify for little or no compensation under paragraph 5(c) of the schedule. In addition, a viable dairy farm created wholly by the tenant's investment and expertise from bare land, with no investment by the landlord, would not qualify, even with the standard quota, plus the value of output in excess of standard quota for more than about one third of the total value of the quota.
      9 pm
      It appears to me that the proposals in the Minister's new clause and new schedule are not only hasty, but ill-conceived and unfair. I join my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, South-East in criticising the CLA and NFU for not coming to an agreement, helping the Government and removing the burden of making the decision from the Minister's shoulders. I regret, in particular, the fact that help was not provided in a far more forthright and ready manner by the CLA. The Milk Marketing Board opposes the Government's schedule as being unfair, and, as has been pointed out, that view is of great significance, because the MMB has no axe to grind. We know that the NFU is opposed to the Government new clause, and that the CLA is, too. We have heard about the agreement reached by the CLA and the NFU in Devon.
      The three counties branch covering Leicester, Rutland and Northampton, has also reached agreement on the matter. I am informed by the secretaries of the NFU branches in Leicester, Rutland and Northampton and the three counties CLA that the agreement was sent to Swallow street, headquarters of the CLA, 10 days or a week ago as soon as the terms of the agreement were known. More remarkably, not only was there agreement between the CLA and the NFU in the three counties, but after a two-day conference representatives of the Tenant Farmers Association, the valuers organisation, the estate agents and even the National Union of Agricultural and Alllied Workers, as represented by the Transport and General Workers Union, also gave their agreement.
      They all gathered together to discuss the Minister's proposals on sharing out the quota and to try to provide an alternative proposal that could attract their united agreement and be put to the Minister. They reached complete unanimity. The basis of the agreement sent to Swallow street a few days ago was that the quota should be distributed on a shared basis and that valuers should help to decide any difference. The formula should be such as to make possible a ratio of one to 99 in favour of either landlord or tenant. After a full day of conference, that is the basis that was agreed on. It is far more sensible than some of the ideas contained in the seven or eight pages of the schedule with which we are struggling tonight.
      I shall support my hon. Friend on new clause 6. I hope that my right hon. Friend, who is a sensible man, will heed the message, that there has not been enough time. If the three counties branch can get together with representatives of the unions and everyone concerned and reach agreement, the CLA at national level should be told to pull its finger out.
      Mr. Jim Spicer: First, I commiserate with my right hon. Friend the Minister who has come straight from his sick-bed tonight. It was brave of him to do so. Secondly, I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister of State on a happier event—the birth of a daughter. We all congratulate him on that.
      1092
      There are three things that most farmers and, I think, landlords say that they want on this issue. First, they want agreement. Secondly, if they cannot get agreement immediately, they would like to see most of the issues dealt with by arbitration. Thirdly, they want as much flexibility as possible. With that starting point, surely it is not beyond the wit of man to arrive at some conclusion. As has been said tonight, it is quite disgraceful that, given those three points, the CLA and the NFU could not sit down and thrash this out, as they have been able to do in some areas. I will not say which.
      My right hon. Friend must intervene, but he cannot be all things to all men. It is unbelievable that this storm has built up purely and simply because he was told by everyone that he must intervene, and now that he has done so, nobody likes it. We should all be ashamed of that disgraceful position.
      I agree with hon. Members who have said that the schedule is complex. I left the House last Thursday night and went to my constituency. I recovered from the Shops Bill on Friday night at a local church, and on Saturday morning this storm broke on me. I was shooting in the dark and that is wrong. I did not see the schedule until I arrived at the House on Monday. That is bad, particularly as the schedule is so complex. At first sight, the schedule seems too restrictive. I must say how grateful I am to my right hon. Friend the Minister for the way in which in his opening speech he seemed to make it clear that there was much more flexibility involved than I had thought.
      Did my right hon. Friend say that if there is no initial agreement, either on the standard quota or on other related matters, decisions could be left to arbitration? That is an important point because if that is the case, it is a big step forward. For the reasons that have been mentioned by other hon. Members I do not like the fixed figure of 4,500 litres. If one imposes such a restriction on the low input farmer and the farmer with low-quality ground, one imposes a restriction on the poorer parts and gives more to the richer parts. That must be wrong in essence.
      All hon. Members have cited examples, and it is much better to do that than to read through the seven and a half pages of the schedule. I shall cite a simple example. In 1971 a good farmer moved to a grazing farm and decided to go into dairy farming. The landlord was not interested in the farm being anything other than a grazing farm. The farmer put every single ounce of work and equipment into that farm. If anyone suggests that the farmer- should do anything other than hand it back as a grazing farm, he is wrong. I cannot accept the figure of two thirds being the absolute maximum because such a person should receive more than that. Equally, if he has not done the job properly, he should receive far less. I hate the idea of any restrictions being involved.
      We all understand the need to encourage new tenants to come in. We understand, too, the restrictions that may be placed upon them when they come in, in terms of the massive burden of cost resulting from the high pay-out on the quota by the landlord, which the tenant must then recoup. We must not make too much of that because, try as we will, the number of tenanted farms that come on the market each year is relatively small. However this matter is dealt with in future, my guess is that the chances of getting more tenant farmers coming forward will decrease rather than increase. Most farmers know that, looming

      1093
      over them, is a general election, with the awful, incredible thought that the Labour party could win, and we know what would happen then.
      Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Like nearly all other hon. Members who have spoken in this debate today, I am sadly torn between the amendments before us. Ever since quotas were introduced, I have been urging the Minister—and since he is my next door neighbour I can get to him readily enough—to find a fair solution to the question of the allocation of the capital value of a quota between a landlord and a tenant. We have all acknowledged in the House tonight his considerable efforts to persuade the CLA and the NFU to come to an amicable arrangement. I can well understand his extreme exasperation that they have failed to do so and his determination, in the absence of such an agreement, to put forward his own solution.
      My right hon. Friend has said, with his usual modesty, that such a solution will not suit everyone. He is absolutely right. The only problem is that I have yet to find anyone that it does suit. There is always a slight disadvantage when one has to try to explain these matters to one's constituents. There are so many imponderables facing us in the seven and a half pages of the schedule. Discussion on the matter yesterday was very much hampered by the fact that one of the main amendments was so badly garbled on the paper before us at the time as to be literally incomprehensible. My right hon. Friend's private office was kind enough to send across to me a photostat of the correct version, but by then it was too late for proper discussion. The last train to my part of the world leaves at 7.15 pm, so that my people had gone before I obtained it.
      It is desperately important, as speaker after speaker has said, that we get this matter right from the beginning, because we are unlikely to get another bite at the cherry. Many farmers in my constituency would prefer discussion on the matter to be postponed. Several hon. Members have suggested that and have requested a separate Bill to be introduced to deal with the share-out of the value and nothing else. We could then really get down to the nitty-gritty and properly consider the details in Committee, rather than try to deal with the matter in half a day on the Floor of the House.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Sir P. Mills) said, we may be putting at risk any tenant who may be retiring shortly or the widow of any farmer who may not continue to run the farm. In his eagerness to get something onto the statute book I am sure that my right hon. Friend had in mind protecting this group of people. I should therefore be reluctant to have nothing in this Bill, but I am bound to say that, if we have to have something, I should prefer new clause 6.
      I shall listen carefully to the winding-up by our rather jubilant Minister of State, and I hope he will say whether the standard quota is taken before the 10 per cent. cut, as put to him by the Leader of the Opposition, and give us some concrete examples of the likely share-outs. If he has time, he may like to expand a little further on the effect of the measure on marginal land farmers and low input farmers, and on how it will relate to the various breeds of cattle. Unless these answers are good, I cannot imagine
      1094
      that many of the hon. Members who have spoken in the debate will vote for new clause 4; rather, they will opt for new clause 6.
      Mr. Keith Best: I realise that any expression of contentment that I may have detected as I rose to speak is more in realisation of the fact that I am the penultimate Back Bench speaker in the debate than in anticipation of what I may say. I congratulate my right hon. Friend on having tried to find a solution to this imponderable and difficult dilemma with which he and the House are faced because there is no agreement between the organisations that are largely responsible for maintaining and promulgating the ideas of agriculture. That is a sad reflection, but it is not so much a reflection upon them as an acknowledgement of the difficulty of the matter with which we grapple.
      I am much persuaded by the arguments of those hon. Members who have sought to persuade my right hon. Friend that a further look at the matter would be advantageous. It is desperately important that we get this right. The matter has raised tremendous controversy. I can only hope that, after the Shops Bill, the bombing of Libya and now compensation for tenants, we never have another week like this in the House of Commons, although I suspect that we may well do so.
      9.15 pm
      My right hon. Friend will know that Wales is the land of the small farmer. He knows that well because he has had close family connections with my constituency. Wales is also the land of the tenant farmer. Wales may be the land of the small farmer but it is also the land of the loud farmers' voice, and my young English colleagues will know that that voice is amplified twofold because we have not one farmers union but two.
      There is profound disquiet at these proposals in Wales because of how they may affect poor tenants. Wales, as I said, is a land of tenant farmers and they tend to be poor. Herein lies our great problem of trying to achieve an equitable compromise between the rights of the outgoing tenant and not inhibiting the incoming tenant.
      I recognise that some tenants have put far more than others into the milk quota over a long time. A formula which has a fixed element, whether it is 50–50 or 25 per cent. coming to the tenant, is not an equitable way of dealing with the wide variation that must exist in everyone's contemplation. Indeed, many examples have been brought before the House today.
      One must also have regard to the poor tenant who wants to come into agriculture and who will be inhibited or prevented from doing so if he has to find an enormous sum in order to buy in effectively because of the amount of compensation that has been paid to the outgoing tenant. That is important in Wales.
      I want to hear my right hon. Friend's views on marginal land. That has been mentioned by many hon. Members tonight. It is particularly significant that several hon. Members from Wales have spoken in the debate tonight and all have mentioned marginal land. A large part of my constituency of Anglesey is marginal land but there is a significant argument, which I have advanced, that the whole of Ynys Môn should be regarded as a marginal area. Indeed, I am sure that the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) would support me in that view. It is poor

      1095
      land and the farmers work it extremely well. It is a constant source of amazement to me that they extract what they do from such poor quality land.
      If my constituents find that they will be discriminated against by the formula in new clause 4, that will be a matter of grave concern and dissatisfaction which agriculture cannot afford at this time, after all the tribulation through which it has been.
      I shall listen carefully to my right hon. Friend and I hope that he will say a lot about the flexibility that will be possible within the existing formula, and particularly how those on marginal land wilt be safeguarded. I hope that we may look at this again but at the moment I am more persuaded by new clause 6 than by new clause 4 unless he can persuade me to the contrary.
      Mr. Nicholas Baker: I certainly cannot complain that my right hon. Friend the Minister has brought forward the proposals very speedily and without leaving us much time, because I am one of those who said that, in view of the lack of ability of the Country Landowners Association and the National Farmers Union to agree—which I deplore as much as anybody who has spoken in the debate—it was necessary that he should do so. Perhaps one of the reasons for the length of the debate—five hours is quite a long time to discuss the subject—is that many tenant farmers in our constituencies have got or been given the wrong end of the stick about some of my right hon. Friend's proposals.
      I start from the position that the quota is a right in land, rather like a mineral right, and is therefore something in which a landlord has an essential and basic interest, albeit at a relatively low level. Above the landlord's basic level, the rest should be capable of apportionment between the landlord and the tenant.
      The reason why I put my name to new clause 6 was partly to ensure that it was debated and partly because, looking at the different kinds of valuation, I favoured the input basis of valuation, which is looking at what both sides have put in by way of investment in buildings, equipment and so on, rather than what I call the output basis, which is the one adopted in new clause 4, which is based really on the rent that those buildings and parts can attract.
      However, I see some severe problems with new clause 6. It is not clear to me how the landlord's interest is to be recognised and it does not seem to me to address the problem of valuation, which is bound to be complicated. Arguments that it is complicated are really a statement of something that cannot be avoided.
      On my right hon. Friend's clause, I too would like to hear more about the lowering of the 20 per cent. variation level. I would regard that as rather high and would hope that it would be possible to have greater flexibility. I should like to see a greater differential between the maximum and the minimum which a tenant can obtain as a share of the quota. I have some qualms about the fact that it is for the Minister to decide what the standard quota is.
      I look forward to hearing what my hon. Friend the Minister of State, the new father of the House, has to say.
      Mr. Home Robertson: I think that a lot of us had hoped that this debate would have been completed some time ago, but I join other hon. Members in congratulating the Minister of State on the birth of his baby daughter. We wish his wife and daughter well and we wish the Minister
      1096
      of State himself many long, sleepless nights when he will be able to reflect not only on the consumption of milk but also on milk quotas and other such matters.
      As the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Best) said, this has not been a very happy week for the Government. They started getting themselves into trouble over the Shops Bill, they got a lot of people into considerably more serious trouble midweek over the bombing of Libya, and, to go from a very serious matter to what many people might think is a rather peripheral matter, I fear that they may have got the question of tenants' rights with respect to the milk quota wrong too.
      I awaited with bated breath to hear what the hon. Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Spicer) would say when he rose to be the last speaker on the Government side. I wondered whether he would perhaps give some support, or even wholehearted support, to the Government, because we have gone through the five hours of this debate without any hon. Member giving unequivocal support to the Minister. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) is saying that the hon. Member for Milton Keynes (Mr. Benyon) was supporting the Government, but he was going in the opposite direction by saying amazingly, that it was too generous to the tenants. So absolutely nobody is happy with new clause 4. The Government have got themselves into a spot of bother.
      There is considerable merit in the constructive suggestion of the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) that the Government should go away and think about this and return with a better-thought-out proposal upon which there might be consensus. Manifestly, there is no consensus for the present package.
      It has been made very clear during the debate that this issue is important to the dairy industry. It is extraordinary that so many right hon. and hon. Members have referred to it. They have obviously been lobbied very strongly by their constituents. That is not surprising. According to my information, 40 per cent. of the dairy farms in this country are tenanted farms. It is therefore a matter of considerable importance to a high proportion of those who make their living from the dairy fanning industry. There is evidence that two weeks ago the National Farmers Union may have been surprised by the strength of feeling among dairy farmers. The original formula suggested a 70–30 split in favour of the landlord. The NFU found that it was under pressure at that stage. The Government find that they are under pressure this evening over a different kind of formula.
      Whether we like it or not, the milk quota is a unique capital asset. I do not want to dwell upon the Minister's past unhappinesses, but he will be aware that the Government blundered into this in 1984. It would be inappropriate to go into the circumstances, but it is worth recalling that this is a temporary five-year quota scheme that is supposed to disappear in 1989. I very much doubt whether it will disappear then, because we are writing on to the statute book another eight pages that are based upon the perpetuation of this scheme. The quota could attract a value of as much as £50,000, which somebody might buy or sell, on even a comparatively small farm. Therefore, it is difficult to imagine that the quota will disappear. We do not necessarily suggest that it should disappear, hut it is time to dispel some of the fictions about the scheme.
      It is unfortunate that what began as a short-term black market is about to be enshrined in statute. A black market in the quota has been operating in one way or another. We

      1097
      want the system to be flexible. It is right that the quota should be able to be moved from one unit to another, but when quota began to be purchased and leased we found that people were getting into trouble. In the Farmers Weekly of 7 March there is an article which reads:
      "Hundreds of speculators now have milk quotas, even though they have no intention of becoming dairy producers. Many of them have never been producers and their speculative holding is upsetting many producers who are short of quota and cannot afford to buy more. Some landowners are keeping quota just to protect the value of their land."
      Not surprisingly, the Milk Marketing Board is worried about this. It means that a quota that ought to result in the production of milk is not being used.
      It might have been better—I say this, admittedly, with the benefit of hindsight—if the quota had never become a tradeable commodity and if any quota that was relinquished, for whatever reason, could have reverted to a quota bank for redistribution on a fair basis. That would have overcome the problem facing incomers to dairy farming, to which a number of hon. Members have referred. However, that has not come to pass and it is no good complaining about the background to the problem. We must confront the problem and do something about what I acknowledge is an urgent matter. Given that this commodity has a value, it is urgent that there should be a fair distribution of its value and that something must be done about the problem.
      No right hon. or hon. Member who has taken part in the debate has expressed confidence in the new clause. The House is being bounced into taking a decision on a very substantial package. It will be possible to amend it only in the House of Lords. I wonder how many tenant dairy farmers will be content that their prospects under this system will be settled for them by the House of Lords? It will not be easy for the tenant dairy farmers lobby to get a fair hearing in that forum. The question of the Scottish dairy farmers will be dealt with in the House of Lords. The Minister may suggest that it would be possible for this House to deal with whatever comes back from the House of Lords as Lords amendments, but that is unamendable, and something which we will have to take or leave. It is clear that the package is not fair, but we are thankful for small mercies in that the Minister has recognised that the tenant is entitled to a share of the valuation.
      9.30 pm
      Under new clause 4, the bulk of the standard quota will belong to the landlord, and the tenant will have to rely mainly on the excess for his share of the valuation. No account has been taken of the 10 per cent. cut in production which was taken when quotas were introduced. Nothing is being done to avoid a penalty being imposed on non-intensive producers, nor on marginal land farmers. About 25 per cent. of the valuation will go to the tenant, in spite of the fact that in many cases the tenant may to a large extent have built up the value on which that figure is based by his own investment and by his own efforts.
      New clause 6 provides a basis of a 50–50 share-out. That is a basic calculation which may vary according to the inputs of the two parties. It seems to be a fair way of approaching this point. That is why I strongly advise my hon. and right hon. Friends to reject new clause 4 so that the House can vote on and accept new clause 6 in due course. I put it to the hon. Member for Wealden (Sir G.
      1098
      Johnson Smith), who seemed to suggest that there was some way of fudging this issue and hoped that there would be an easy way out of it, that that will not do. If the House does not reject new clause 4, we will be saddled with this proposal, which has been seen to be loaded too heavily in favour of the landlord. We should not take that option. We should vote against new clause 4 and accept new clause 6.
      Mr. Gummer: May I thank the Members of the House for their generous congratulations which were addressed to me but which I know are to go to my wife. Whether or not I should pass on to her the kind remarks of the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Sir P. Mills), which referred to her in what I must say were rather bovine words, I do not know. Perhaps she will not read that particular part of Hansard. I must say to the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey) that the way in which he suggested that this was a somewhat early arrival was, it seemed to me, part of a deep party political purpose to undermine the confidence of the strict Baptists in my constituency about a matter on which they place a considerable amount of weight. I know it was a slip of the tongue, and that was the only slip involved.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, South-East (Mr. Hicks) introduced his new clause in a way which I think commended itself to the House. I hope that he will be helped by the answers which I give, not only to him, but to other hon. Friends and hon. Members as I go through this. There have been some very direct questions asked, and I shall have to answer them.
      I do say that it is natural that the clause which has been put down by my right hon. Friend is one which does look more complex than his own, but that is partly because it covers a whole range of areas which need to be covered and which, his, I think, does not. My hon. Friend has accepted that to some extent: I do not think that there is division between us on it.
      This is a complex matter, not just because it is an argument about who owns the quota or an argument between landlord and tenant. It is an argument, first, about the ownership of quota, dependent upon the circumstances which, as every hon. Member has agreed, differ widely; indeed, they might be said to differ from farm to farm and from relationship to relationship. Further, it is an argument between outgoing tenants and incoming tenants. I do not think that any hon. Member can forget that in seeking an equitable solution we cannot ignore the fact that in almost all cases—certainly in almost all cases which involve one tenant going out and being replaced by another tenant—the actual cost of the compensation to the tenant who goes out will come from the pocket of the tenant who comes in. That must be taken into account in the discussions.
      In reply to the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor, I would say that it is possible to postulate a scheme which would enable help to be given in the limited number of hardship cases. However, we are not talking about a limited number of hardship cases but about every case in which one tenant succeeds another tenant and in which there is a pay-out on the value of the quota. In every case that we are talking about, we are discussing a quota on which people who were in dairying before never expected to get any pay out. What tenants expect at the end of the

      1099
      tenancy is to be paid for improvements. A description of that was given graphically by my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg).
      I remind those of my hon. Friends and Opposition Members who talked about hardship to the tenant that no tenant will suffer hardship because in every case in which there is a payment the tenant will be paid something which he could not have expected to get up to now. I hope that hon. Members realise that if we do not make a change, there will be no payment to tenants in these circumstances. Therefore, it is unfair to suggest that the Government have not had the tenant's interests considerably in mind in the drafting of the new clause.
      The argument has been fiercely fought. I hope that hon. Members who were present listened carefully to the assertions of my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) and of my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes (Mr. Benyon). In their speeches they made a statement which showed that they had taken a particular view about where the overwhelming weight of the value of the quota should be placed.
      In this short debate I do not wish to stand on one side or the other. To argue that we have got it wrong because those two views are still unreconciled is to ignore the fact that the two views are unreconcilable because they take a wholly different view of the nature of the quota. Because the people representing those two views have not been able themselves to reconcile them, the Government are put into the position of producing an answer. I do not think it stands up for the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) to say that that in some way casts doubt upon the strength of the position put forward because people still wished that their view had triumphed and that the other view had not been taken into account. That is the situation in which we find ourselves.
      My right hon. Friend has been right, first, to seek to answer the question; secondly, to put down the new clause; and thirdly to say to the House that any delay means that tenants will leave without compensation, which must be damaging if hon. Members think that they have any rights in the matter. Given the short time that hon. Members have had to debate the matter, I accept that we must try to pay close attention to the points that have been made.
      I can answer directly the question asked by the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John). He asked whether the 10 per cent. was taken into account. It was, and that is the reason why the standard quota is lower than the average quota. It was said from the beginning that the problem with the average quota is that it depends upon the quotas that were granted. Those quotas were diminished, in some cases by 10 per cent., and that was because of the arrangements made at the time by the Government. One could say that all this should be left to a valuer and that there is no reason to have this difference put into the Bill. However, there is a good reason for it.
      Once we get into the business of trying to value quota that might have been given, we are in great difficulty. That is because we would be asking the incoming tenant not only to pay for the quota which has been granted and which he might be able to use to gain the money to pay compensation through the landlord, but also to pay compensation for quota that had not been granted. Therefore, he would not have the benefit of that quota to enable him to gain the return to pay his ingoing premium or his extra rate.
      1100
      I have made a note of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Sir P. Mills). He asked about the definition of the standard quota and then spoke about the 20 per cent. I shall come back to that in answering the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton, his neighbour. On the matter of marginal land and low-input and low-output farmers, the present clause covers the problems my hon. Friend placed before us. We are determined that the clause should solve these problems and I give the undertaking that we shall watch carefully to see that it does what we want it to do, which is to provide a fair share of the quota to people who are in either of those positions. I hope that meets the needs which have been rightly mentioned by hon. Members who represent such constituents.
      I think the House recognised that the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes (Mr. Benyon) represented a totally different point of view from that which was presented by other hon. Members. The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) made the point that there are two totally different views about this and said we could not take any credit for our view. I should like to remind him of what The Scotsman said in an article on 12 April. It said:
      "This failure to satisfy either the landlord or the farmers' organisations is an indication that it may not be a bad formula after all."
      I am sorry that that has to be said but I fear it may be true. There is a real lack of understanding on both sides of the other side's position. The two sides are far apart and it would be wrong of us to believe that merely by putting this off for another two weeks we would be able to give an answer which would satisfy people more than this, although I hope that we will use that time to look carefully at the points raised by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
      An hon. Member asked about taxation. Some hon. Members defined this quota as a practical gain and payments for that will be subject to capital gains tax in the normal way. The hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) said that he was looking for a fair deal on retirement for the tenant. I hope that the House will accept that that is not what we are seeking, because the tenant receives part of his deal on retirement in the form of the payment that he receives for the improvements that he has made and, of course, through the arrangements that he has made for his retirement. Until very recently there was no question of a capital payment being made. That has come about because of the so-called creation of an asset.
      9.45 pm
      Mr. Nelson: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the extent to which such dairy farmers have been able to provide for their retirement during their working lives has been limited by the imposition of quotas? That is why the apportionment of such quotas on retirement is relevant.
      Mr. Gummer: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right about apportionment being relevant. But it was suggested that that was all that we were talking about. I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that in some cases the operation of quotas has not resulted in a lowering of the income in the way suggested, but that in many other cases, it has done so. There are some people who, by reducing their inputs and by accepting the lower outputs, have found that they have a higher margin than beforehand.

      1101
      This matter is not easily approached. Indeed, the hon. Member for Rother Valley seemed merely to restate that tenants were good and landlords were bad. But we will not get anywhere if hon. Members adopt that sort of approach.
      Mr. Barron: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that if a tenant has worked hard to build up his yield and his quota, he should be able to get something for it? Sometimes tenants build up their yields not with the aid of landlords but despite them.
      Mr. Gummer: I quite agree, and that is why we are here today and why the Government have tabled the new clause. It saddens me that he and the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay) suggested that we were not trying to find an answer. We are all trying to find an answer, and we are trying to make sure that it is right. But we will not get much further unless hon. Members accept that.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) asked about share farmers. That is different, because most share farmers have specifically entered into their particular arrangements in order not to be subject to the landlord-tenant arrangements that are part of our statute law. Consequently, they have made arrangements as to what the apportionment of their inputs and outputs should be. This is not the relevant legislation for dealing with that—if there is a relevant statutory place for it, which I doubt. I hope that my hon. Friend will listen carefully when I answer the point about 20 per cent. that was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton, as I believe that that will cover his point.
      Mr. Christopher Hawkins: Perhaps my right hon. Friend will clarify the capital gains position. I accept that a capital gain should be taxed as such. But would it be taxed as a capital gain falling all in one year when it is paid, or could the capital gain be spread from the day that the tenant started his tenancy? Alternatively, would the capital gain be treated as starting the day that the quotas began? If my right hon. Friend cannot answer that point now, will he make a statement later?
      Mr. Gummer: I should be happy to write to my hon. Friend on that point. It is, after all, a technical and complicated matter.
      We listened carefully to the remarks of the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie). However, he underestimated the real problem of dealing with the balance between the outgoing and incoming tenant. We were opposed to quotas initially, but we cannot ignore them. We must get the balance right.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) spoke as enthusiastically as I would about the work that farmers do. But I very much disagreed with him when he questioned whether it mattered if we delayed. It does matter, because even a short delay would mean that some people who were entitled to perhaps a considerable part of a quota would in fact get none. We think that would be a mistake.
      The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor explained the complexities of the clause. I think that he underestimated the fact that the clause is based largely on what we understood was the view that the NFU felt was acceptable or would be acceptable to it, so it cannot be quite as unjust
      1102
      as some hon. Members have suggested, but we understand the problems. He got the stocking rate wrong because it is nearer 1·31 cows. I assure him that the views about which we are talking were well canvassed not only with the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, but with the Central Association of Agricultural Valuers, both of which have given us advice. We have acknowledged this all along.
      There is a very real problem in trying to shrug off the difficulty for the incomer merely by suggesting that one can deal with the hard cases. By increasing the amount of quota value to be paid out to the outgoers, one is setting a higher price for everybody who wants to come into dairying. Those of us who believe that one problem with farming is that it is increasingly difficult to enter because that is the nature of the control over surpluses would be very concerned not to push the problem aside. While I in no way wish to be party political, I think that on that occasion the hon. Gentleman showed a paucity of knowledge about the matter because tenants who are going to come in know perfectly well that they will not be covered by any scheme involving 10 per cent. tax on those who are able to find a way of transferring their quota, because at present there is no system of flexibility of quotas to enable that to be done. Therefore, I think that the hon. Gentleman is avoiding the difficulty, because as usual he wants to be all things to all men. One cannot deal with the outgoers in the way that he wants without affecting the incomers, and that must be faced.
      I hope that I can give my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Morrison) some help. We did not have an enabling clause because we felt that it was important, if it was to last for as long as it looks as if it may have to, that over time there was seen to be an equity of compensation. If one were to leave it so vague, it would, first, be contrary to the advice that we received from the valuers because it would make for more expensive, protracted and general valuations; and, secondly, one would not achieve equity over time. Although there is, of course, the opportunity to appeal to the county court against what has been decided; I will look at his proposals about appeal to the agricultural land tribunal. I do not think that is the right place, but I will look at it.
      I do not believe that one can have 100 per cent. compensation for the tenant. I believe that even if in the smallest way land has been used for dairy production, some small compensation must be available to the landlord. However, I must tell my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes that I am not in favour of the proposition that the tenant who has reduced the value of his landlord's land, having taken over a dairy farm, should pay some sort of direct compensation on outgoing. That seems to be to be the exact corollary of 100 per cent. for the tenant in some cases, and therefore we have set our sights against both of those conditions.
      I turn next to the points made by the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Corrie). [Interruption.] Hon. Members who have not been present in the debate may think that the points raised by those hon. Members who have been present are unimportant, but specific questions have been asked, the House is concerned that we should get this right and those questions must be answered.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North presented three different cases and asked about the difference in compensation. I believe that the compensation would be radically different in each of those cases. I

      1103
      hope that we shall be able to increase the flexibility and make sure that the valuer is able to take even more into account. We shall see whether the new clause covers this point to the extent that my hon. Friend would wish.
      The hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) is not here—
      Mr. Tony Banks: He is lucky.
      Mr. Gummer: The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) has not been here at all for the debate, and we have all been very lucky. He ought to be here, because he now has no work to do on the GLC.
      The hon. Member for Wrexham suggested that the Government tabled the new clause to protect the landlords' interests. That is manifestly untrue. Had we wanted to do so, we would have tabled no new clause, and consequently tenants would have got nothing.
      My hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Mr. Hawkins) referred to the less favoured areas. I shall take that point seriously. He was right to make it, and I shall see whether it can be put right if it is not right already. I believe that it is, but I shall see whether we can help.
      The hon. Member for Meirionydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Thomas) asked us to withdraw the new clause. We cannot do so because we believe that would damage his tenants, and I am sure that his tenants would not want to get no support at all.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton asked me to look at several matters. I cannot put off this decision—
      Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Why not?
      Mr. Gummer: I hope that my hon. Friend has listened to what I have said. We differ on this matter. I am on one side and he is on the other, and I am afraid that I cannot help him.
      However, I can help in relation to the 20 per cent. I am perfectly prepared to look at it again. My hon. Friend said that this would be less helpful than it ought to be, and I shall see that we do something about it.
      If I have not covered other points that have been raised it is because they are detailed and I shall have to deal with them at a later date—[Interruption.] If hon. Members wish to hear more, they will no doubt sit throughout the rest of the proceedings. This is the best way of dealing with a problem in respect of which we cannot satisfy two wholly divergent interests—those of the incoming tenant and those of the outgoing tenant. That is what this is really about, and I believe that the Government have produced the best answer.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 210, Noes 142.

      Division No. 145]

      align="right">[10 pm

      AYES

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Biggs-Davison, Sir John

      Amess, David

      Blackburn, John

      Ancram, Michael

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

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

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

      Baldry, Tony

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Batiste, Spencer

      Boyson, Dr Rhodes

      Bellingham, Henry

      Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

      Bendall, Vivian

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Bennett, Rt Hon Sir Frederic

      Bright, Graham

      Benyon, William

      Brinton, Tim

      Best, Keith

      Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Brooke, Hon Peter

      1104

      Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

      Jones, Robert (Herts W)

      Browne, John

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Bryan, Sir Paul

      Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

      Carlisle, John (Luton N)

      Key, Robert

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      King, Rt Hon Tom

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

      Knight, Greg (Derby N)

      Carttiss, Michael

      Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

      Chalker, Mrs Lynda

      Knowles, Michael

      Chapman, Sydney

      Lang, Ian

      Chope, Christopher

      Lawler, Geoffrey

      Churchill, W. S.

      Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

      Colvin, Michael

      Lilley, Peter

      Conway, Derek

      Lord, Michael

      Cope, John

      Lyell, Nicholas

      Cranborne, Viscount

      McCrindle, Robert

      Critchley, Julian

      McCurley, Mrs Anna

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Dicks, Terry

      MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

      Dorrell, Stephen

      MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

      Dover, Den

      McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

      du Cann, Rt Hon Sir Edward

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

      Dunn, Robert

      Major, John

      Dykes, Hugh

      Malins, Humfrey

      Eggar, Tim

      Malone, Gerald

      Emery, Sir Peter

      Marlow, Antony

      Evennett, David

      Mather, Carol

      Eyre, Sir Reginald

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Fallon, Michael

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Favell, Anthony

      Mayhew, Sir Patrick

      Fenner, Mrs Peggy

      Mellor, David

      Forman, Nigel

      Merchant, Piers

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Forth, Eric

      Miller, Hal (B'grove)

      Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

      Mills, Iain (Meriden)

      Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

      Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

      Freeman, Roger

      Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

      Fry, Peter

      Moate, Roger

      Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Moore, Rt Hon John

      Goodhart, Sir Philip

      Morris, M. (N'hampton S)

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

      Gow, Ian

      Moynihan, Hon C.

      Grant, Sir Anthony

      Murphy, Christopher

      Greenway, Harry

      Neale, Gerrard

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

      Needham, Richard

      Ground, Patrick

      Neubert, Michael

      Grylls, Michael

      Newton, Tony

      Gummer, Rt Hon John S

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

      Norris, Steven

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Onslow, Cranley

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Hargreaves, Kenneth

      Osborn, Sir John

      Harris, David

      Ottaway, Richard

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Page, Richard (Herts SW)

      Hawkins, C. (High Peak)

      Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

      Hawkins, Sir Paul (N'folk SW)

      Patten, J. (Oxf W & Abgdn)

      Hayes, J.

      Pawsey, James

      Hayhoe, Rt Hon Barney

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Hayward, Robert

      Pollock, Alexander

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Portillo, Michael

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Hickmet, Richard

      Powley, John

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Price, Sir David

      Hind, Kenneth

      Proctor, K. Harvey

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Rathbone, Tim

      Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

      Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)

      Holt, Richard

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Howard, Michael

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

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

      Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

      Ridsdale, Sir Julian

      Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Hubbard-Miles, Peter

      Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

      Hunt, David (Wirral W)

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Hunter, Andrew

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Shersby, Michael

      Jackson, Robert

      Silvester, Fred

      Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

      Sims, Roger

      Jessel, Toby

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      1105

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      Viggers, Peter

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Wakeham, Rt Hon John

      Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

      Walden, George

      Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

      Walker, Bill (T'side N)

      Stradling Thomas, Sir John

      Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

      Sumberg, David

      Watts, John

      Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

      Whitfield, John

      Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

      Whitney, Raymond

      Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

      Wood, Timothy

      Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)

      Thurnham, Peter

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Mr. Tony Durant and

      Tracey, Richard

      Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd.

      NOES

      Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Anderson, Donald

      Hicks, Robert

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Home Robertson, John

      Ashby, David

      Howells, Geraint

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Hoyle, Douglas

      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

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

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

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Knox, David

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Lamond, James

      Blair, Anthony

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Leighton, Ronald

      Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)

      Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

      Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)

      Litherland, Robert

      Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)

      Livsey, Richard

      Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Bruce, Malcolm

      McCartney, Hugh

      Buchan, Norman

      McDonald, Dr Oonagh

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

      Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)

      Maclennan, Robert

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      McNamara, Kevin

      Clarke, Thomas

      McTaggart, Robert

      Clay, Robert

      McWilliam, John

      Clelland, David Gordon

      Madden, Max

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Coleman, Donald

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Cook, Frank (Stockton North)

      Maynard, Miss Joan

      Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)

      Michie, William

      Corbett, Robin

      Mikardo, Ian

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

      Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

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

      Nellist, David

      Dewar, Donald

      Nelson, Anthony

      Dixon, Donald

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Dobson, Frank

      O'Brien, William

      Dormand, Jack

      O'Neill, Martin

      Dubs, Alfred

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

      Parry, Robert

      Eadie, Alex

      Pendry, Tom

      Evans, John (St. Helens N)

      Pike, Peter

      Ewing, Harry

      Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

      Farr, Sir John

      Radice, Giles

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Randall, Stuart

      Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)

      Raynsford, Nick

      Fisher, Mark

      Richardson, Ms Jo

      Flannery, Martin

      Rogers, Allan

      Forrester, John

      Rooker, J. W.

      Foster, Derek

      Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)

      Foulkes, George

      Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

      Freud, Clement

      Rowlands, Ted

      Gardiner, George (Reigate)

      Sheerman, Barry

      Garrett, W. E.

      Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Hamilton, James (M'well N)

      Silkin, Rt Hon J.

      Hardy, Peter

      Skinner, Dennis

      Harman, Ms Harriet

      Smith, C.(Isl'ton S & F'bury)

      Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

      Soley, Clive

      Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

      Strang, Gavin

      Haynes, Frank

      Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

      Heddle, John

      Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)

      1106

      Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)

      Winnick, David

      Tinn, James

      Winterton, Mrs Ann

      Torney, Tom

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Wallace, James

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Wareing, Robert

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Mr. Ron Davies and

      Williams, Rt Hon A.

      Mr. Allen McKay.

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      It being after Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Bill stood adjourned.
      Ordered,
      That, at this day's sitting, the Agriculture Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Mather.]
      Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee) again considered.
      New clause 4 added to the Bill.

    New Clause

      CONSUMERS' COMMITTEE
      'In section 19 of the Agricultural Marketing Act 1958, for subsection (2) there shall be substituted—
      "(2) A consumers' committee shall—

      (a) consist of a chairman and not less than ten other members, who shall be such persons as appear to the Minister, after consultation as to one member with the Co-operative Union, to represent the interests of consumers; and

      (b) be charged with the duty of considering and reporting to the Minister on issues of food policy affecting consumers.".'.—[Mr. John.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. John: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      The report that I heard last week that the cuckoo had not been sighted in Britain because of the cold weather is completely wrong. It has been sighted in the Agriculture Bill. The cuckoo in this case is new clause 4, which has so far displaced all the other business in the Bill. It has taken, properly, five and a half hours to debate it. My complaint is that whoever arranged for the Report stage and Third Reading in one day, took no account of that. It has produced a total distortion of the time allowed for debate and a total nonsense of the work of the Committee. I am not impressed with the way in which the Government have added to the Bill on Report.
      That said, it is a pleasure to have moved new clause 1, the purpose of which is to extend the remit of consumer committees in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The problem with consumer affairs and the growing interest in consumer affairs in agriculture is becoming patent, and many Labour Members—their view is shared throughout the House—are anxious that the committees' influence should be increased. That is the purpose of the new clause. The time when shortage dictated an automatic market has passed, and what we and our fathers faced was competition from abroad. If British agriculture is to survive and prosper, it must pay much more attention to changing consumer tastes, not only because the consumer wants good quality food at reasonable prices, with a wide choice, but because it is good for farmers to ensure that there is discipline to provide food at the right price and the right quality.
      Consumers want to buy such food, and there have been many complaints about the dearth of British resources.

      1107
      There is a great debate about diet and health, and there is great concern about additives and labelling, all of which are here to stay, and all of which must be recognised in our dealings with consumer affairs. Section 19 of the Agriculture Marketing Act 1958, which set up the consumers' committee within the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, provides that there should be a chairman and no fewer than six members of the committee; secondly, that it should deal with any scheme, which must be approved by Ministers. Since it was set up in 1958, all but three schemes have been repealed, and the only schemes that are in operation are those for wool, milk and potatoes. Therefore, the consumer committee in the Ministry is limited in the type of commodity with which it may deal. It should be able to range across the wide spectrum of food.
      Secondly, the committee is limited in the investigations that it may initiate. For example, it cannot directly intervene on behalf of consumers on topics such as import controls and food processing techniques. The latter are of paramount importance to the consumer. The body is limited not only in the range of topics with which it may deal, but in the initiatives that it can take. I think that that is wrong. New clause 1 would therefore substitute for subsection (2) a consumers' committee consisting of a chairman and at least 10 members, the addition in number being designed to take account of the wider sphere of work given to the committee, which would
      "be charged with the duty of considering and reporting to the Minister on issues of food policy."
      That wider remit is widely overdue.
      I do not believe that by transforming the ministerial committee one could achieve the consumer input into food matters that is required. We need an outside body to consider the matter. Some body analagous to the National Consumer Council will have to be set up in future, with Government funding.
      10.15 pm
      The consumers' committee within the Ministry of Agriculture will be more relevant if we adopt new clause 1. It will be wider in scope than it is now and more relevant in the type of work that it can initiate. If we keep the consumers' committee in its present form it will speak with an increasingly irrelevant voice on a declining number of subjects, and we will have the worst of all possible worlds.
      The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mrs. Peggy Fenner): I am glad to have this opportunity to place on record the Government's views on the representation of consumer interests. We attach great importance to the matter. Consumers have a real, proper and growing concern about the formulation of policies which have a direct bearing on the availability, quality and price of food. I can therefore register sympathy with a number of points which have been made in this respect by the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John).
      I would not want the House to form the impression that the present consumer consultation arrangements are either nonexistent or at best inadequate, or confined only to the area to which the hon. Gentleman referred. That is not the case. We regularly consult consumer interests on the Government's position in relation to the annual price-fixing proposals when determining the Government's negotiating stance. However, as in the case of all consultations on that matter, the
      1108
      realities of discussions in the Agriculture Council require a certain amount of flexibility to be retained in order to make progress. That does not mean that we lack sympathy for the consumer view. There are also regular and extensive discussions with consumer interests in one of my Department's other main areas of responsibility, namely, that of food standards and safety. There is a statutory obligation on Ministers to consult all interested parties, including consumer representatives, before making regulations under the Food Act. The Food Advisory Committee provides independent advice to Ministers on food matters, and its members are drawn from a wide range of interests, including consumers. Of course, one is always prepared to listen seriously to suggestions for improvement. The consumers' committees established under section 19 of the 1958 Act perform a useful task in monitoring the effect on consumers of agricultural marketing schemes. They were set up in connection with the regulated product contained in each scheme. Those schemes have been overtaken by time. Only those for potatoes, milk and wool remain. They are not slow to come forward with recommendations to Ministers, although alternative points of view are often put forward too.
      Mr. Allan Rogers: The hon. Lady suggests that if anyone puts forward improvements she will consider them. Will she accept that on the question of agriculture and prices, she should contain prices and exhort the Minister of Agriculture, when he goes to Europe, to resist continual demands by the French and Germans for food price rises? That would be the best deal that the Government could give the consumers.
      Mrs. Fenner: No hon. Member present has the opportunity to say more clearly than I do, having spoken at the Dispatch Box on and off since 1972, that the past few years are the only ones during which the food price index has remained below the retail prices index generally.
      Mr. Rogers: That is not the Minister's fault. It should have fallen even further.
      Mrs. Fenner: It could hardly have fallen further. Food prices have been stable.
      It would be misleading to think that the new clause introduces some radically new concept into the area of consumer consultation, because it does not. Much of the machinery is already in place. In such circumstances, it does not seem sensible to introduce the changes proposed because they would overlap and duplicate many of the existing functions of consumer organisations which advise us and are always consulted over the years. They have built up an expertise in the areas for which they are responsible.
      Mr. John: Outside consumer bodies must advise on food, such as milk and potatoes. One does not complain about an overlap with the ministerial committee in that respect. As it is the only ministerial committee, why can it not be given a decent remit?
      Mrs. Fenner: I submit that it has the remit written into the Acts. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree that since writing those Acts and setting up marketing schemes, consumer expertise and sophistication throughout the Western world has grown. Those bodies are much more powerful and have a great input into every Western country's economy, including ours. They have a great deal of say. Nevertheless, I would welcome any progress which the consumer organisations can make in

      1109
      increasing the consumers' impact in Brussels and other member states, possibly through increased co-operation among the consumer organisations in western Europe.
      In a newspaper article, the hon. Member for Pontypridd has said that my Ministry has appeared to see its main task as representing farmers. That is just not so. I have already mentioned the liaison arrangements with consumers, and we also consult food manufacturers and distributors. In determining policy we cannot give absolute priority to any one point of view. We must take account of the public interests and public expenditure constraints. We must take account of what is practicable and negotiable in Brussels. There is a balance to strike. It is in the long-term interest of farmers that they should take account of the consumer interest, and that policies should be formulated with that in mind, together with other considerations. That is what my Department does, and since I joined it in 1972, and became the first woman to be appointed a Minister there, that has been one of my major preoccupations.
      Finally, I doubt whether it would be appropriate to amend the 1958 Act in the way pfoposed, as its provisions deal with the regulated product of agricultural marketing schemes, rather than with wider agricultural and food policy issues.
      The new clause, apart from being legally unsound, would serve only to confuse rather than to clarify. For those reasons, we are unable to adopt the changes which it would introduce in place of arrangements which I regard as being generally satisfactory, although I never have a closed mind about consumer representation.
      Mr. Maclennan: The purpose of this new clause seems to be to give the consumer a new statutory body to speak more generally on marketing schemes than do consumer committees. However, I cannot see how this proposal would greatly benefit the consumer. In these matters of determining food policy, as the Minister said, the consumer's voice is represented by several existing statutory and other bodies and, in particular, by the National Consumer Council, which has a general remit and the members of which are in my experience, annually voicing their views about matters of food policy.
      Mr. John: If the hon. Member had talked to the NCC he would have heard its complaint that little has neither the personnel nor the resources to deal adequately with so important and widespread an area as food. It would welcome the setting up of a properly funded analagous body. In the meantime, within the Ministry—and that is the point of the amendment—we would have a voice speaking for consumers in the councils of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
      Mr. Maclennan: I thought that the earlier point the hon. Member was making was that he wanted an independent voice and not a voice within the Ministry. It seems that he wants to have the argument both ways. I believe that consumers are well represented by the NCC and other statutory bodies that regularly make representations. I would not want to see their independent position undermined by a body appointed in the way the hon. Member has suggested.
      Mr. John: I am not sure whether to marvel at the hon. Member's naivety or at his stupidity; perhaps it is an unlikely
      1110
      combination of both. The hon. Member has clearly never troubled to consult the NCC. He has exuded complacency. This bears ill with the pretentions of the alliance to be the champion of the consumer. He is opposing the extension of the remit of a body that exists already within the Ministry. He appeared not to understand that situation very clearly. I suggest that, in his busy schedule, he find time to see the NCC representatives and ask them whether they think they have sufficient remit, resources and personnel in order to deal with the matter of food. If he does so, the complacency he has shown in his short and misguided contribution this evening will rapidly disappear.
      Mr. MacLennan: The hon. Member is really remarkably arrogant about these matters. I must remind him that for five years I served as Under-Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection and dealt, on an almost weekly basis, with the NCC. I am bound to say that his experience in other fields may be considerable, but I do not believe that he can speak with equal authority on this matter. The NCC would be horrified if it thought that its independent role as a representative of the consumer was to be usurped by a creature of a Department of State. I believe that the hon. Member's suggestion is positively damaging to consumer interest. However, had he not felt obliged to make his extraordinarily immoderate response to my speech, I should not have had to reiterate that point.
      Mr. John: No one knows as much about anything as the hon. Gentleman pretends to know about everything, so I bow to his seal of guarantee on arrogance because it seems that no one is as well qualified in this House as he to give such a seal. He simply does not understand the new clause or the point I am making. I have said that two things are necessary. As he will know from his vast ministerial experience, at present there is a committee within the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to advise the Minister on consumer affairs. That committee deals with only three areas, namely, wool, potatoes and milk. In order to extend its influence and make its remit proper and understandable it should be given a much wider remit, not because I believe it would replace outside independent bodies. I deliberately said that I believe an outside independent body is also necessary. If we are to have a ministerial committee, it should be given a proper job to do. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will ponder that and come up with more constructive ideas about the protection of the consumer when he next speaks on this subject.
      10.30 pm
      I regret that from the Minister I did not get even tea and sympathy; perhaps I got water and sympathy. She, too, in a sense believes in Dr. Pangloss's claim that all is best in the best of all possible worlds. The drafting of the new clause may not be perfect, but she did not answer the principle of it, which is that if a consumer committee in the Department is to be relied on, it should be given a proper job to do. There is no point in asking the committee to examine a scheme if its members feel frustrated and that their initiative is severely limited.
      For those reasons, it has been worth airing the role of the ministerial committee. It is not designed to replace the outside independent body. This committee already exists within the counsels of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and it would be appropriate to extend its remit.
      Question put and negatived.

    New Clause 5

      CONSOLIDATION OF AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SCHEMES
      'The following paragraph shall be inserted after paragraph 5 of Schedule 1 to the Agricultural Marketing Act 1958—
      "5A.—(1) Without prejudice to any other powers conferred on him by this Act, the Minister, if he is of opinion that it is expedient that any scheme should be consolidated, may by order make a substitutional scheme.
      (2) The power conferred by this paragraph to make an order shall be exercisable by a statutory instrument which states that the order contains only provisions made for the purpose of consolidating a scheme revoked by it; and any such order shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.".'.—[Mr. Andrew F. Bennett.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      The clause deals with a small but technical point with which the Joint Committee is much concerned. It is an important and accepted principle of legislation that we try to consolidate the law and that, when the law is implemented through regulations, those regulations are consolidated in such a way as the public can inspect the law without having to thumb through a great deal of other legislation.
      We also try to ensure when we pass legislation that the Government have power to consolidate regulations. Under the milk marketing scheme the Government are not able to initiate regulations. They simply have a semi-judicial role in that they arbitrate on the regulations. That has made consolidation difficult. The new clause would enable consolidation to take place.
      I suspect that the Minister will say that the drafting of the new clause is faulty, although we were assisted in its drafting by Mr. Speaker's counsel. I shall be content, and not press the matter, if the Minister accepts the principle of the new clause and undertakes to introduce in another place a satisfactory form of words to cover the point that I have in mind.
      Mr. Jopling: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) for explaining his amendment. I find it difficult to accept the amendment as it stands, but I am prepared to discuss with the hon. Gentleman the introduction of an amendment in another place which would meet the Joint Committee's wishes as well as a nutnber of other points. If he would be satisfied with that and be good enough to withdraw his new clause perhaps we can proceed on those lines.
      Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: On the basis of the undertaking that has just been given by the Minister, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 1

      PROVISION OF SERVICES AND GOODS CONNECTED WITH AGRICULTURE AND COUNTRYSIDE
      Mr. John: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 6, leave out clause 1.
      Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 2, in page 2, line 6, after 'or', insert,
      1112
      'subject to approval by affirmative resolution of the House of Commons'.
      No. 4, in page 2, line 7, at end insert—
      '(3A) Within three months of the passing of this Act the Minister shall set out in a report to Parliament the criteria which he proposes to apply in determining whether to introduce charges for services provided under this section, the method of charging which he proposes to adopt, the amounts which he proposes to charge, and any exemptions from charging which he proposes to make. '.
      No. 5, in page 2, line 7, at end insert—
      '(3A) The Minister shall appoint such officers and staff as may be necessary for the supply of services or goods under this section and shall provide training appropriate to their duties.'.
      Mr. John: Some of the amendments in this group amend in part the basis of charging and the number of staff in the Agricultural Development and Advisory Service, but amendment No. 1 simply seeks to delete clause 1.
      We had a short stand part debate in Committee, but nevertheless there was a remarkable lack of clarity at that stage as to how the scheme would work, what the basis of the charging was, how the ADAS staff would be able to cope, how they would be trained to do so and how many of them would be engaged in invoicing an billing as opposed to delivering the advice.
      I hoped that with the passage of the 11 weeks to which I have earlier referred that more clarity and detail will be available to us tonight than was the case in Committee, because we are that much nearer the implementation of the scheme. If ADAS is to be launched upon an unsuspecting agricultural public, we had better know and debate the scheme and its ramifications at this stage.
      Clause 1 is broad in scope, not only covering the provision of any services or goods in relation to production and marketing of agricultural produce but also dealing with research and development. So it is not confined merely to advisory services; it also deals with research. It seeks to replace provisions in the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1944 and the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 as well as the Agriculture Act 1947.
      Clause 1 should be removed from the Bill, first because so far there has been a statutory duty upon the Ministry to provide advisory services and all the other subjects which are listed in clause 1. Clause 1 would substitute a discretionary power and whether it is to be provided or not will cause widespread concern because of the uncertainty that is bound to arise whenever a discretionary power is put in the place of a duty. There will be widespread concern among the farming population, conservation organisations, and so on. I refer, because it is a matter of common circulation to hon. Members, to the memorandum of the Council for the Protection of Rural England on that subject. Therefore, clause 1 should be deleted because it removes a statutory duty and replaces it with a discretionary power.
      Secondly, clause 1 exists against the background of cuts both in the advisory and research services. The House should consider the extent of each of those. In advisory services in 1987–88 the cut at the ADAS level will be £20 million which will be accompanied at MAFF level by a cut in the same year of £16·5 million. In agricultural research we have a cut in 1986–87 at ADAS level of £10 million doubling to £20 million in 1987–88. At the same time, in ministerial research we have a cut in 1986–87 of £18·25 million rising to £16·5 million in 1987–88. At a time when agriculture is expected to adapt to deal with the new situation, cuts are bound to weaken the fabric of both

      1113
      ADAS and ministerial advice and research into the subject. Unless the Minister can provide one tonight, there is no guarantee that after 1987 that will be the end of the matter. There may be a continuing spiral of cuts.
      Although the proposed cuts may appear to be significant at the bilateral talks that are held each autumn, compared with the £1,893 million that is spent upon CAP market support in the United Kingdom they are very small indeed. They are being made at the expense of the dispersal of and, in many cases, at the expense of the redundancy of highly expert advisers and research specialists. Their dispersal means that never again will there be collected together such an expert body to advise agriculture in a position of travail.[Interruption.] I appreciate that the Minister and his Parliamentary Private Secretary have difficulty in understanding this biblical phrase, despite the Minister's earlier allusion to Baptists.
      Mr. Gummer: Given where I have spent the whole of this afternoon, the word "travail" is very close to my heart.
      Mr. John: I should have thought that, were he prepared to use it, the word "labour" would be much nearer to it.
      The dispersal of this body of expert knowledge would have tragic consequences for the quality of advice and research that is available to agriculture at precisely the time when it needs it most.
      Furthermore, parliamentary approval is not required for the detailed system of charging. We have not been given the basis for the charges. No details have been made public so that discussions can be held about them. We are told that no charge will be made for conservation advice, but if a future Minister were to decide that a charge should be made for conservation advice, the House would have no power to influence his decision, or even to debate the matter.
      A great deal of the statutory work that is shared by the NFU and the milk marketing board is carried out for the benefit of the public. Inspections are carried out under the milk and dairy regulations to protect the public against the consequences of contaminated milk. A charge is to be made for this service. The Minister says that the provision of good milk will benefit the consumer. The producer also benefits. The consumer is at one remove from the producer who is being charged. The fact that statutory work has not been charged for has served us well over the years. It has ensured a reasonably high standard of food hygiene and the standard of care to which the Parliamentary Secretary referred in the last debate. The charging system needs to be clarified.
      On 13 February Big Farm Weekly carried an interview with Professor Todd who was reported as having said that the full economic cost of the service is to be passed on to the user. Is that so? Or will the Minister say, using the immortal words that so enlivened our Committee stage debates, that consultations are still taking place? If he cannot assure us that those consultations are now coming to an end and that they know what they intend to do, I fear that the inclusion of this clause is a blank cheque.
      The Government have said that advice relating to conservation, rural diversification and animal welfare will be exempt from charges.
      1114
      In Committee the Minister seemed unable to suggest how one would draw a line between those and the other advice.
      If we go to the Bell report, at paragraph 47, we find that Professor Bell says that this type of advice—meaning conservation—is inexorably linked with the measures which improve the efficiency of the operation. That is what I would like to ask the Minister. How can he separate the two, and what counts as pure conservation?
      For example, advice on pesticides may benefit the environment, and also benefit the farmer to cut his costs by being able to apply only the correct amount of pesticide. Will this service be charged for, because it has to do with the business, or will it be exempt because it has to do with the environment? That is the sort of detail upon which we had no advice in Committee, and I believe that it is high time that we had some advice.
      10.45 pm
      The next point is the mushrooming of private consultants. We shall see a sudden increase in the firms of private consultants, who will give the advice which ADAS is now being disabled from giving for financial and personnel considerations. They will not be obliged to take conservation into account as did the ADAS personnel. Should there not then be a code of practice for them?
      I do not know whether Ministers will consider that matter, whether they have already made up their minds, or whether they are still open minded about it. Time is getting short. We have had a Committee stage plus eleven weeks, and we still do not know publicly what the ministerial stance is.
      I believe that the major flaw in this case is that charging will mean that the very people who need the advice most will be unable to pay for it. Small farmers on hill and upland areas who most need advice may well find themselves precluded from taking as much advice as they would wish, even if they can afford some.
      If subscription schemes are introduced, will there be a guarantee that farmers will get advice from ADAS as and when they want it? We know that often emergencies divert attention, energy and manpower, but will that advice be available?
      I should like to deal with the training of ADAS staff in their new marketing orientation. I give way.
      Mr. John Carlisle: Before the hon. Member goes on to training, he is giving the impression that farmers receive advice at the moment only from ADAS. Will he agree that many commercial organisations give an enormous amount of advice free of charge, in some cases in commercial consideration of their products which they are trying to sell. However, the personal advisers that he has talked about have been in existence for many years and have not just sprung up because of this Bill. They have the advantage of giving farmers and growers advice without having some commercial consideration by a large firm behind them.
      Mr. John: I should like slightly to adapt the advice given to some hon. Members and say that there is no such thing as a free consignment. A lot of advice is given by commercial advisers on the side to enable the farmer to apply their products.
      ADAS is perceived to be totally independent, at the service of the farmer, and able to range across a much wider spectrum than would agricultural supplier who would deal mainly with his own product, and its effects.

      1115
      Although I agree that other advice is possible, I would say that no advice could supplant ADAS, and I do not believe that any advice is as good as ADAS advice. The hon. Gentleman may disagree, but I say that if this measure goes through agriculture will learn to its cost just how good ADAS has been and just how damaging are the Government's proposals for it.
      I am sure the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) was not trying to divert me from the new training for ADAS staff for their marketing orientation. Whatever else we may disagree about, we will agree that that is a new departure for the staff. They have not been used to charging for their services and they will have to become market-oriented. From the news I have received about training, it seems like a bad book in the series, "How to Succeed". I understand that it is proposed to have a two-day course to train ADAS staff for their market orientation—how to be a salesman in two days. It sounds like a course in how to learn Esparanto in 12 hours. If the Minister has contrary information, he should tell the House tonight that their training will be much more thorough. If they are to have only a two-day course, ADAS will be launched into its new role completely unprepared for the rigours of the market. That brings me back to the private consultants who will operate without a code of conduct.
      Another matter of concern is that a statutory duty is being accepted by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. We were delighted to hear that in Committee, but it will have an effect upon ADAS. How can it carry out that role when it has to charge? I would not be the first to be thought of as a Francophile, but the French are raising their research budget by 10 per cent. at this difficult time when we are cutting ours. The ADAS staff has already been cut by 12 per cent. and the cut will go up to over 20 per cent. when the further 450 redundancies are declared.
      We have had no details to date about redundancies in the ADAS research organisations. I hesitate to remind the House how long it has been since Second Reading, yet no further details have been made available. We know about the implications for the manpower of the Agricultural and Food Research Council because it has published a corporate plan for 1986–91 which refers to a 26 per cent. drop in the volume of research over the period between 1983 and 1991; job losses are put at 600 in 1984–85, 580 in 1985–86 and 600 in 1986–87. That is roughly one third of all staff employed by the council; about 1,800 people will be declared redundant between 1984 and 1987.
      Coupled with the privatisation of the plant breeding organisation and other bodies, that points not only to the basis of ADAS being changed but to the quality of its advice, and of all advice and research in agriculture being badly affected at the very time when farmers are desperately seeking such advice and research to help them adapt to the changed circumstances which will affect farming in future. That is why I believe that the House should throw the clause out, although other amendments seek to modify its rigours slightly.
      Mr. Roger Moate: I agree very much with the words of the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) in commendation of the work done by ADAS and the high regard in which it is held, certainly by the people with whom I am particularly concerned, namely, the smaller growers and farmers. I also agree with the
      1116
      emphasis that he placed on the importance of research and development at a time of high and increasing competition with our continental competitors. As the hon. Gentleman might expect, I also agree w1th what he said about the £2 billion that we spend on market support under the common agricultural policy at a time when we are making fairly major cuts in these important services.
      I do not agree with the rather pessimistic approach that the hon. Gentleman adopted. I warmly welcome the increased opportunities for private consultancy, as [do the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) that commercial interests can and will provide a wide range of highly valuable services to a large number of growers. There is some validity in the point that the advice tendered by commercial organisations concentrates on the areas of their own interests and does not generally cover the wide spectrum of interests which have frequently and consistently been supported by ADAS and the Ministry.
      The specific worry that I should like to put to my right hon. Friend is about the effect on smaller growers. We are entitled to some reassurance from my right hon. Friend that this matter will receive careful consideration. Smaller growers are least able to afford higher charges and might suffer most. Although we talk easily about the problems of agriculture and about the high levels of income to the larger growers, it should be borne in mind that many smaller growers—I say growers because I am talking about the horticulture industry in my constituency—struggle year after year to survive. The imposition of charges will be a heavy burden on them.
      Small growers have benefited most from the first-class services offered by ADAS and the Ministry, especially in the development of new types of fruit. This is not an area in which private commercial interests are likely always to be available to advise; and small growers may well suffer. I do not disagree with the principle of charging. Agriculture is a highly important matter about which commercial interests should have the chance to make commercial decisions. I receive representations from highly efficient but small growers who are struggling to stay in business and are genuinely worried about the charges that might be imposed by organisations upon which in the past they have depended and greatly respect. I hope that nothing we do will make it harder for those growers who are fundamental to the life of our countryside to stay in business and to flourish at a time when they are desparately worried about new competition, especially from an enlarged European Community.
      Mr. Livsey: I should like to make a few important points. I cannot agree that charging for ADAS services is a good thing. There is room for commercial advice and this has been available for some years. I have worked in the commercial advisory field. We are being asked to introduce charges for ADAS services. That advice has always been independent and not linked to commercial interests, and it is important for us to stick to that principle. I am not saying there is no room for commercial advice, because there certainly is, but ADAS should not be asked to impose charges in competition with commercial advisors.
      I am worried about research. The plant breeding institute in Cambridge has been involved in all kinds of research into cereals and has carried out that research in an objective and fine way. What will happen if

      1117
      commercial interests become involved in the plant breeding institute and we lose some objective research? Pure research, possibly on low input systems of growing cereals may conflict with the commercial interests of any grouping that may take over the plant breeding institute. We cannot afford to lose objective research. We have seen cuts in the Weed Research Organisation. That has happened in the past, but now the research station has disappeared. We have also seen cuts at various other research stations such as Compton which has stopped research in several areas. We have seen also cut backs in the Welsh plant breeding station, and the losses of jobs in all those places.
      11 pm
      There are many fears about clause 1. I believe that it will undermine objective research and objective advice. I am not saying that there should not be a commercial sector. There is a commercial sector, but I think that it will not adequately compensate for the necessary independent research and advice.
      I am particularly worried about charging for advisory services in the less wealthy farming areas, in particular in the less favoured areas where the ability to pay for services does not exist. The targets set for ADAS in regard to charging and income I believe will not be achieved in those areas. Are we, therefore, to discriminate against those areas in the matter of advice? I am sure that is not the Government's intention, but that is what may happen as a result of what they are doing.
      If the Government reject our arguments for clause 1 to be taken out of the Bill, we would like to see each charge for every service put before the House for consideration.
      Mr. John Carlisle: Like the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey), I have been involved in commercial advice to farmers and growers. I wish to allay some of the fears that will have been aroused by the alarmist talk of the hon. Member for Pontyprid (Mr. John). The question has been raised, particularly by Opposition Members, whether advice given freely is necessarily better advice than that which might be given on a commercial basis. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman may have underestimated somewhat the advice that is given in the private and commercial sector by those who are well trained. The cost of this training is borne by companies at considerable expense, and those involved are not sent out into the world until they have had that training. Farmers are, I think, getting better advice from commercial companies now than they were in the old days. I say that from a certain amount of experience.
      If I may say so, I think that the hon. Gentleman also overestimated the value of advice given by ADAS. Although because it is so-called free it is meant to come in an unbiased way, the advice given is not necessarily the best advice. It could be argued that, had more money been available for better training in the ADAS scheme, with farmers and growers able to make contributions to it, ADAS might have been better advised.
      As the hon. Member for Pontypridd has said, there is no such thing as a free service, yet Opposition Members are now complaining that the service has to be paid for.
      Mr. Stephen Ross: Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that agriculture is probably the most
      1118
      efficient industry in the country? Why has it been so efficient and done as well as it has done? The answer is, through the services of ADAS and its predecessors. It has been of the highest quality. It is disgraceful that the hon. Gentleman should decry it now.
      Mr. John Carlisle: I do not need lessons from the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) in the viablity of agriculture. I have spent all my life in agriculture, I am a farmer's son and I have spent 20 years of my commercial life advising farmers and commercially marketing their products. I do not need the hon. Gentleman to tell me about the viablity of an excellent agricultural trade.
      I say to the hon. Gentleman and to the Opposition that the great idea that because the advice is freely given it is the best advice is nonsense. I would not want the House to be left with the impression that those in the commercial sector are giving advice purley for their own commercial interests. As I said in an earlier intervention, there was a growth of personal consultants over many years before the Bill was considered, even in the dark days before this Government were elected. These consultants stand or fall on the advice that they give and on the commercial viability of the farmers on which they consult. If their advice is not good enough, the farmers will not accept it. It is a hard commercial world in relation to advice. Most of us in the trade welcome the fact that ADAS will now have to be paid for.
      The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor talked about the PBI. When it is privatised—and I hope that it will not be too long before it is—the money that will be available for potential buyers could be such that the research and development that goes into the PBI will be considerably more than at present. That must be to the benefit of growers. A large amount of cash will be involved, and that will be to the benefit of the growers and the institute.
      Farmers and growers are ready to pay for advice if they think that such advice will help make them more commercially viable. The Bill's provisions will assist them in that way.
      Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I intervene briefly towards the end of the Bill's passage—my hon. Friend the Member for Meirionnydd;ant Conwy (Mr. Thomas) having been involved in earlier stages.
      I cannot accept the comments that have just been made, particularly the slur on people working in ADAS—[HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] It was a slur. If the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) carefully reads what he said, he will see that there is a reflection on the ability of ADAS—that people are not as well trained as they might be and that the resources have been such that people may not be up to the same standard as the private sector.
      The experience of farmers in my part of the world has been very different indeed. I do not know whether standards vary from area to area, but the representations that I have received arise directly from the large volume of pressure in my own constituency from farmers who are extremely upset at the possibility of a decline in the ADAS service.
      In my area, farms are small. It is subsistence farming. It is not farming with large resources that can be used for highly professional independent advice. I wish that that were the case. It would be excellent if farmers had the

      1119
      resources to take advantage of every possibility, but in my area it is very much breadline farming, and those farmers depend on the advice that they receive from bodies such as ADAS.
      Over the last few years, there has been a tremor of fear in the Welsh agriculture industry because of the run down in research. The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey) referred to the effect on the plant breeding station. Farmers in Wales were extremely concerned about the cuts at Aberwstwyth, because the direct help that they have received for many years has made land—often marginal land—much more productive because of know-how and development.
      The agriculture industry faces a difficult time. Farmers may lose the services of ADAS, which has been one of their main supporters, and because of the resource squeeze on them they may not be able to take advantage of other opportunities.
      I am not for a moment decrying the ability of those who are working in the private sector, although I would question whether they are all totally impartial as they obviously have an eye on their own commercial interests. That is perfectly natural and understandable, but there must be an alternative that is readily available and not priced out.
      People in Wales feel strongly about the possibility of charges for some of these services. That could put farmers off from using them. We must devote all the resources we can to research in the agricultural sector, and we should not restrict artificially the availability of those services. For that reason, I shall support amendment No. 1.
      Mr. Gummer: The purpose of this clause which we are invited to remove from the Bill is, first and foremost, to make clear the wider remit of agriculture as distinct from the one which has so far been depended upon in earlier Agriculture Acts. I believe it to be absolutely right that we should make clear that the Minister is responsible for supplying to any person any services or goods relating to a much wider range of items than was previously the case. We used to see agriculture in far too narrow a context.
      However, there is an inevitable result. One cannot—not just ought not—lay the same statutory duty for that wider range of matters as for the much narrower range. It would mean that anyone concerned with
      "the conservation and enhancement of the natural beauty and amenity of the countryside"
      could say that any service which he thought concerned that ought, by statutory power, to be carried out by ADAS. That cannot be so.
      We have had this argument in Committee. It was one of the arguments which seemed to me to be so obviously accepted that the other side of it rather trailed away. Those who opposed it realised, when they looked at the problem in a straightforward way, that the reality was different from the fear. I can see that one could be afraid that to move from a statutory duty, in the narrow sense, to a wider statement might mean that less concern would be shown in the future than hitherto. Yet nothing that my right hon. Friend and I have said or done could possibly lead to the substantiation of that fear.
      The opposite has happened. We are now saying that agriculture is not just about husbandry and growing crops; it stretches to conservation and
      "the enhancement of the natural beauty and amenity of the countryside".
      1120
      Agriculture is also concerned with other activities and enterprises which benefit the rural economy. That is why cause 1 is crucial. If Opposition Members persist in pressing for the abolition of this clause, they will once again be taking a reactionary view about what we are trying to do in the Bill, for at long last we have broken out of the attitude towards agriculture which is now being trumpeted abroad by the Labour party. It evidently does not want to have this extension or scope. If it wants it, why does it wish to get rid of the clause in which that extension is enshrined?
      That is why the introduction of the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) to what he put forward was neither acceptable nor in accordance with the facts. More important, it appears that in the 11 weeks of which he has spoken he has learnt nothing, for we have had this debate backwards and forwards—and nobody took his view. He did not win a single impartial person to his side. The reason is that it does not stand up. Many of those people who felt that perhaps he might be right realised, when they came to consider what a statutory duty would mean, that this was an impossible situation, for anyone involved in any activity in the countryside could demand that the Minister should provide any service he regarded as being related to that activity.
      The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. Either he wants this wider definition of agriculture, or he must accept that only the narrower definition can carry a statutory duty. If he wants the wider, he must accept that it is no longer a statutory duty but a discretionary power. Otherwise no Ministry could take this wider remit upon its shoulders, and this Ministry certainly would not be prepared to take on that which it could not carry out.
      The hon. Gentleman went on to talk about a number of things, but I would take up particularly the milk and dairy regulations. It is true that their cost will be borne by those who receive the benefit. Who are the first beneficiaries? They are those who wish to sell the product with the assurance that it is a pure product. It is perfectly right for those who produce and sell to carry that kind of cost. That is, after all, what his Government visited constantly on the rest of industry. Is he suggesting that in some way or other industry should turn to the Government for payment of so many of the things which, rightly, he demands that it achieves?
      Most of industry has laid upon it a requirement to sell goods of a proper standard for the purpose for which they are intended. It is not the Government who pay for that research, or for the checking and testing; it is industry itself. It is not unreasonable that the agriculture industry should also meet the cost of being able to sell its goods at the standard required by the customer.
      11.15 pm
      The hon. Gentleman spoke in a sneering tone about the mushrooming of private consultancies. There is great advantage in the private consultancy because we know where its bias lies. Therefore, unless one thinks that farmers are extremely stupid—and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not think that—one realises that the farmer knows perfectly well that, when consulting someone with a commercial interest, he must take the advice with a very large pinch of commercial salt.

      1121
      There are other sorts of bias. When I talk to conservation interests, they say that ADAS is very much biased against them. I do not happen to believe that, but they think so. There are many differing biases.
      I would not go along with what my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) said in his assessment of ADAS. I also find peculiar the view that it is blasphemous to cast any doubt upon the service provided by ADAS at any time, as suggested by Liberal Members. It was a most preposterous riposte. It appears that every time we discuss any section of the population that might vote Liberal they come into their own. It is a most remarkable achievement—
      Mr. Stephen Ross: That is disgraceful coming from a member of the Church of England synod.
      Mr. Gummer: Oh dear, oh my goodness—
      Mr. Ross: It is totally dishonest and a disgrace.
      Mr. Gummer: It is a little late in the evening for the hon. Gentleman to enter our debate and then to lose his temper so rapidly. He should look after his health a little better. It is synthetic anger.
      The House should honestly be able to say that ADAS has done—[Interruption.]
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. Hon. Members must not bellow across the Chamber.
      Mr. Gummer: The House must honestly accept that ADAS has contributed a great deal to the advancement of agriculture. However, to say that the advancement of agriculture is entirely the responsibility of ADAS is a load of rubbish, and we all know it. It is to do with the work of farmers, it is to do with the investment of farmers and landowners, it is to do with the way that the agriculture industry has been led to produce 80 per cent. of the temperate needs of this country. It is ridiculous to say that because ADAS has been largely responsible for that, we cannot discuss alternative means of providing advice, and it is not sensible to suggest that ADAS cannot charge for some of its services. Many of us would say that by charging for some of its services it would get closer to the market and, perhaps, tailor some of its services more to what people need rather than what they think they should need. There is always a temptation—[Interruption.] It is odd that some people believe that, unless one is 100 per cent. sure that the way an organisation is, is how it should always be, one is betraying that organisation. I am simply saying that we can improve ADAS by ensuring that there is a closer association between it and the market—
      Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Rubbish.
      Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman's contribution to this part of the debate, as in the rest of our debate this evening, consists of shouting "Rubbish" from a sedentary position. We know the contribution of the alliance parties to agriculture. We have had nothing useful or productive from its members this evening, which is the fifth successive time that we have had no help from the alliance when debating agriculture.
      Mr. Bruce: Give way.
      Mr. Gummer: No, I shall not give way, because so far I have been unable to speak without the hon.
      1122
      Gentleman shouting at me. He does not even have the courtesy to ask me to give way. The hon. Gentleman must accept that if ADAS is to do its job properly it must be viewed in the context of general advice not only from commercial businesses but from elsewhere.
      The hon. Member for Pontypridd used a technique which I have noticed before which is called the using-thepercentage-without-giving-any-of-the-figures technique. The hon. Member said that France would increase by 10 per cent. the state contribution to the advisory service, but he did not say on what or in comparison with what. I checked on the situation in France and it should be said that French farmers contribute nearly half of the cost of the advisory service. The Government are considering small charges, but are still spending £120 million on ADAS. The figure of 10 per cent. seemed to be a figure plucked out of the air. In Denmark the contribution of the state was 37 per cent. in 1972 and fell to 22 per cent. in 1982. In Germany the state contribution is 40 per cent. and in the Netherlands it is about 50 per cent.
      We would not be out of line with our neighbours if we suggested that some part of the cost of the advisory service should be contributed by those who receive its advice. I agree with the worries expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate). I have carefully considered what we are doing and I shall monitor what we are doing. I appreciate his concern about the small grower. I have many such growers in my constituency and they are concerned that services should be tailored to their special needs. I hope that the element of commercialism will promote that.
      Mr. John: The right hon. Gentleman has said that comparatively small charges would be imposed on British farmers. How do we know that when he has not given us any details on charging?
      Mr. Gummer: I mentioned such charges in making the point that, even with these charges, we will be spending £120 million on the services provided. That is a large proportion of the expenditure.
      The hon. Member for Pontypridd wondered why in such circumstances we do not place before the House a series of charges. The answer is that in these areas we want ADAS to be commercially oriented and able to react to the needs of the market. We want to ensure that it can provide the services which are required by the small growers mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham. ADAS can do this only if we have some flexibility. If it is tied to a tariff, one is expecting it to work in a commercial environment with both hands tied behind its back. If that were the case, it could not compete with commercial enterprises. The hon. Member for Pontypridd wants us to do the one thing which would destroy the ability of ADAS to compete and and win in the market place.
      I have no fear for ADAS because it is a successful body and will be able to meet the needs of the market. To ensure that the marketing is effective there will be a two-day induction course for all employees of ADAS. That is just the starting point, because there will be continual training. To laugh at the initial two-day course is to suggest that educational training can start nowhere.
      That is a typical example of the reaction of those who do not wish ADAS to work because they believe that the only advice worth having is free advice. That is nonsense.
      Mr. Bruce: That is not what was said.
      Mr. Gummer: The hon. Member may shout that, but the spokesman for the Liberal party said that he did not think that the services of ADAS should he charged for—or did he?
      Mr. Bruce: He did not say that.
      Mr. Gummer: The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livesy)—it was the one occasion when the hon. Member for Gordon was in the Chamber—said that ADAS gave the best advice and that that advice should be free. He went on to say that commercial advice was biased and, therefore, worse than the unbiased advice of ADAS. That must mean that he believes the best advice to be free advice.
      I am sorry to have taken so long in replying to the debate—
      Mr. Livsey: The Minister is getting carried away with himself. I did not say what he suggested. I said that we have a perfectly good advisory service which has a free, honourable record. Why cannot we continue with that and have commercial advice alongside it? It is disgraceful to charge for the advice of a service that was not set up for that purpose.
      Mr. Gummer: If the hon. Gentleman believes that I have mis-stated what he said. I withdraw any part of my remarks which mis-stated his case. But what he said is precisely what I thought—that ADAS provides the sort of advice which he and his hon. Friends see as better, more important and more central than any other advice.
      Mr. Bruce: Rubbish.
      Mr. Gummer: Is ADAS advice better than other people's advice? That is the question that I ask the Liberal party.
      Mr. Bruce: It is necessary to have it.
      Mr. Gummer: That changes the position altogether. Of course, it is necessary to have it, and we shall continue to have it. The Government will continue to pay for a large proportion of it, and we are asking people to pay a proportion for themselves. That is what happens in all the countries of the European Community that I have mentioned.
      More importantly, the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor is asking for apartheid between commercial advice and the advice given by ADAS. That is unacceptable. It would be much better if ADAS provided a more direct connection with the market, and that is what the amendment proposes to do. I am sorry if the Opposition do no want the clause, but I hope that the House has noticed that the arguments against the clause, although wrong, have been made properly by the official Opposition, in contrast with the mere shouting match from the alliance.
      Mr. John: After such felicitations from the Minister, I regret having to remind him that, although some women undergo post-natal depression, he is obviously undergoing post-natal euphoria. If the alliance did not exist, it would be necessary for him to invent it, because, robbed of that prop, the House might have adjourned at a reasonable hour tonight.
      The Minister talked of the lost 11 weeks. Neither in Committee nor tonight has he deigned to give us facts. He
      1124
      says, "I cannot tell you about charging because it may contravene commerciality, and anyway I am rot so timorous about the future of ADAS as to believe that it could go wrong." In that, he differs from Professor Bell, who says that, depending on where the charges are pitched, there could be a substantial fall in demand, which could jeopardise dual objectives. Professor Bell could conceive of difficulties, but our euphoric Minister of State could conceive of nothing. The House is not worthy to hear even the basis of the charges being put before it. I challenge the Minister once more to say whether the full economic cost of ADAS advice will be charged.
      The Minister is always longer on rhetoric than on fact. I challenge him to say how we could separate conservation advice which happened to be intertwined with advice on pesticides, in view of his declaration that environmental advice would not be charged for but that commercial advice would. Shall we have a stopwatch ADAS, in which every 30 seconds a watch clicks off and on and they say, "We are off pesticides as a conservation measure; we are on to pesticides as a commercial venture?" Is that what he is asking us to accept? Of course not. He is asking us to accept that his amusing tirade at the expense of the alliance is a substitute for answering the detailed and perplexing points that we raised in Committee, but which were not answered then or tonight. The House does not know the facts and neither does AD AS.
      11.30 pm
      The Minister talked about my sneering at the two-day course. The responsibility for ADAS having nothing better than a two-day course to prepare it for the realities of the commercial market is the Government's. They have not been able to devise a scheme, or to take ADAS into their confidence, early enough for it to be prepared properly. They will cast it into competition with what the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) has described as expert commercial undertakings, and I have no doubt that many of them are, with only a two-day course to prepare it. To use the modern jargon, it will have two days of in-house training. Even with the Minister of State's silver tongue, that is not a recipe to ensure that ADAS will be able to take its place in the commercial market and compete with the commercial undertakings. It is a recipe for decline.
      The attractive feature about ADAS has been its duty to give advice rather than discretion, and by removing that duty and replacing it with discretion we shall have an adverse effect on the quality of advice which has guided agriculture under both Labour and Conservative Governments.
      The Minister has sneered and said that the Labour party argues that industry has to pay for ensuring the merchantable quality of its goods. That is so, but we are talking of different traditions. Agriculture has so far been in a position where it has not been charged for advice that has benefited the public as well as manufacturers. At the end of the day it will be the consumers who carry the cost and not producers. The Minister should be frank and admit that to the House.
      Mr. John Carlisle: That happens now.
      Mr. John: But in a diluted form. The taxpayer carries the cost now. The hon. Gentleman may squirm, but the consumer and the taxpayer do not always coincide. The

      1125
      largest consumers are often those who are unable to bear additional costs, but that is a wider economic argument which I do not want to enter into tonight.
      ADAS is being asked to effect economies through the redundancy of 450 members of its staff. The Minister has talked about the percentages to which I referred, but he did not challenge the assertion that ADAS's advisory staff will be reduced by 20 per cent. He is aware that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has stated that the ADAS research staff will be cut by 450 in two years. Those people will be cast adrift in a commercial world and will be inadequately prepared, and ADAS will have a diminishing staff that will be unable to compete on equal terms. There will be less advice available to agriculture at a time when it will want it most.
      I do not want to take up all the Byzantine rhetoric that the influence of certain shouting induced the Minister to produce, but I must respond to the right hon. Gentleman's comment that the Opposition trailed away in Committee. We trailed away to the extent that we forced a vote against the clause at the end of the debate to decide whether the clause should stand part of the Bill. We intend to force a vote against the clause this evening because we believe that a statutory duty could be combined with a wider definition of agriculture, and not because we believe that a narrower definition of agriculture should prevail. We do not accept that the one goes with the other. I hope that the House will reject the clause out of hand.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 28, Noes 125.

      Division No. 146]

      align="right">[11.35 pm

      AYES

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

      Livsey, Richard

      Bruce, Malcolm

      McKay, Allen (Penistone)

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Maclennan, Robert

      Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)

      Nellist, David

      Clelland, David Gordon

      Parry, Robert

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Pike, Peter

      Dalyell, Tam

      Randall, Stuart

      Eadie, Alex

      Rogers, Allan

      Evans, John (St. Helens N)

      Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

      Ewing, Harry

      Rowlands, Ted

      Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

      Skinner, Dennis

      Haynes, Frank

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Home Robertson, John

      Howells, Geraint

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      John, Brynmor

      Mr. Ron Davies and

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Mr. John McWilliam.

      NOES

      Amess, David

      Bulmer, Esmond

      Ashby, David

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.

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

      Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

      Carttiss, Michael

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Cash, William

      Baldry, Tony

      Chalker, Mrs Lynda

      Batiste, Spencer

      Chope, Christopher

      Bellingham, Henry

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Benyon, William

      Conway, Derek

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Cope, John

      Biggs-Davison, Sir John

      Cranborne, Viscount

      Blackburn, John

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Dover, Den

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      Dunn, Robert

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Durant, Tony

      Bright, Graham

      Eyre, Sir Reginald

      Brinton, Tim

      Fallon, Michael

      Brooke, Hon Peter

      Farr, Sir John

      Bryan, Sir Paul

      Favell, Anthony

      1126

      Fenner, Mrs Peggy

      Mather, Carol

      Fletcher, Alexander

      Mayhew, Sir Patrick

      Forman, Nigel

      Merchant, Piers

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Miller, Hal (B'grove)

      Forth, Eric

      Mills, Iain (Meriden)

      Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

      Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

      Freeman, Roger

      Moate, Roger

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Moynihan, Hon C.

      Goodhart, Sir Philip

      Murphy, Christopher

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

      Nelson, Anthony

      Ground, Patrick

      Neubert, Michael

      Gummer, Rt Hon John S

      Newton, Tony

      Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Osborn, Sir John

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Page, Richard (Herts SW)

      Hargreaves, Kenneth

      Patten, J. (Oxf W & Abgdn)

      Hawksley, Warren

      Pollock, Alexander

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Portillo, Michael

      Hickmet, Richard

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Hind, Kenneth

      Powley, John

      Holt, Richard

      Proctor, K. Harvey

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

      Raffan, Keith

      Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

      Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)

      Hunt, David (Wirral W)

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

      Ridsdale, Sir Julian

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Key, Robert

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      Knight, Greg (Derby N)

      Stradling Thomas, Sir John

      Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

      Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

      Knowles, Michael

      Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

      Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

      Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Thurnham, Peter

      Lilley, Peter

      Viggers, Peter

      Lord, Michael

      Wakeham, Rt Hon John

      Lyell, Nicholas

      Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

      McCurley, Mrs Anna

      Whitfield, John

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Wood, Timothy

      MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

      Major, John

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Malins, Humfrey

      Mr. Gerald Malone and

      Marland, Paul

      Mr. Francis Maude.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      11.45 pm
      Mr. Home Robertson: I beg to move amendment No. 7, in page 2, line 22, at end insert—
      '(6) In exercising his powers and duties under section 4 of the Small Landholders (Scotland) Act 1911, the Secretary of State for Scotland shall take account of the objectives of subsections (1), (2) and (4) of this section.'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 28, in page 14, line 34 [Clause 15], leave out subsection (6).
      Mr. Home Robertson: One of the purposes of amendment No. 7 is to enable us to hear something from the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, who sat through the entire Committee stage of the Bill in silence. That, I think, was a case of dumb insolence on his part, but we hope during this brief debate to entice him to say something about the situation in the agricultural, advisory and research service in Scotland.
      The obscure reference in the amendment to the Small Landholders (Scotland) Act 1911 will, I trust, enable us to debate the Government's attack on the agricultural advisory service, the research service and agricultural education in Scotland. The amendment would incorporate the useful aspects of clause 1 into the Scottish system, and it would specifically build in the reference to conservation in subsection (1)(b) into the Scottish scene, but it would

      1127
      obviously omit the unjustifiable reference to charges in subsection (3), about which my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) was speaking in relation to the rest of the United Kingdom a minute or two ago.
      Charges for advisory services for agriculture in Scotland are not ruled out by the present legislation as it affects Scotland. However, it has not been the practice of the Scottish agricultural colleges to charge for their advisory services, and the plans to impose such charges are part of a squalid package of cuts which are being imposed by the Treasury on the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and on the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland. What a package that is for Scotland.
      We are being confronted with a 41 per cent. cut in the funding for the agricultural advisory services of the three Scottish agricultural colleges. We are being confronted with an 18 per cent. cut in the funding for research and development in Scotland, and there are parallel cuts in the state veterinary service and in the other aspects of state involvement in agriculture in Scotland.
      All that is being dressed up as some kind of a review of agricultural education, advisory services and research in Scotland, but in reality this is an extremely damaging raid by the Treasury on the Scottish agricultural college system.
      The integrated system that we have in Scotland is universally recognised to work well. Indeed, it was recently commended by the Select Committee on Agriculture as a system which worked well because it is a partnership between the agricultural research services, the agricultural advisory services and agricultural education.
      There is no waste in the system, and there is proper cooperation between the three sectors. There are no watertight compartments. People involved in agricultural research in Scotland are in close contact with farmers, and the students in our colleges get the maximum practical experience. There is a proper flow of information between the three sectors.
      The cuts in the budgets of our three agricultural colleges, and the cuts which have been imposed on the Scottish agricultural research institutes are undermining the whole system. There is genuine evidence that Scotland is taking a heavier share of that cut, although the Government are predictably going to great lengths to try to obscure the issue. Indeed, it is difficult to establish direct comparisons because of the different structures in England and Scotland.
      I find the arguments and the detailed figures which have been provided by the Scottish agricultural colleges on this issue convincing and disturbing. There appears to be a genuine risk that if the income from charges cannot be raised in the coming year, the advisory staff throughout Scotland could be cut from a total establishment of 208 advisers to only 55.
      The problem seems to be that the Scottish agricultural colleges are facing even tougher constraints than ADAS in accommodating that regime of cuts. The first year could be absolutely disastrous. If they cannot get the income from the charges in 1987–88, the entire system could collapse. That is no exaggeration, because if there is a fall in the numbers of staff available to do the job in Scotland it will be impossible for those in remote areas to get access to the service. The costs of providing the service are higher in Scotland. Many farms are in remote areas. The needs
      1128
      of the marginal areas, such as the area that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland is supposed to represent, are considerably greater.
      I refer to the annual report for 1985 of the Edinburgh School of Agriculture that serves the east of Scotland. It refers to a market research project into the reaction of farmers at the prospect of having to pay commercial rates for advice. It says:
      "This report indicates that the standing of the College's advisory service ranks high with Scottish farmers hut their ability to pay is, as we suspected, severely curtailed by their current financial position. In the last normal year for which data are available (1984), the net farm incomes of Scottish farmers were less than £5,000 a year, and thus it is obvious that many farmers with less than average incomes will have great difficulty in paying an economic charge for advice which they have previously received free."
      The report continues:
      "the revamped services will not merely have to be sold to farmers able and willing to pay, they will have to be tailor-made to farmers' needs and marketed accordingly."
      The report makes two fundamental points. First, there is likely to be a slump in the uptake of advice by farmers. That slump in uptake may be only temporary, because the farmers cannot afford the advice, in present circumstances. Many of the farmers who most need the advice will be those who cannot afford it, under present circumstances. They may believe that they can do without this kind of technical support in the next year or two, but if they do without it in the next few years they will find that it is no longer there if they decide later that they want to take it up again. The shortfall in funding could wreck the system.
      Secondly, the advisory and research services may in future have to be targeted at the most prosperous farms. The smaller, marginal farms—the farms that most need advice—will find that those services are no longer available. It is a serious matter, and I hope that the Minister will deal with it.
      As if the disruption of the Scottish colleges, with their excellent system of integrated education and advice, were not enough, the Government have extended their attack to the Scottish agricultural research institutes. The principal focus of the Government's attack is upon soil science, land use and marginal farming, refer to the Macaulay Institute of Soil Research in Aberdeen and to the Hill Farming Research Organisation that is based at the Bush in Midlothian.
      These two institutes provide a classic example of the principle of divide and rule The Government say that they want to get rid of about 100 members of staff and of one of the two locations at either Craigiebuckler or the Bush. Not surprisingly, both of the institutes and their staff have rallied to save their own institutes. The Government have cynically stood back and watched the conflict that they deliberately sought to start.. That is a despicable way to treat two excellent Scottish agricultural research institutes. Even at this late stage, I urge the Minister to think again.
      The remote rural areas in Scotland that are involved in marginal farming need all the expertise that is available in Scotland to restructure and to diversify land use and the economy of those areas.
      This is not the moment in our history to sacrifice excellent institutes like the MacAuley and the HFRO, which can help restructure those important and fragile factors of our economy and ecology.
      I am not opposed to a review of the system, but I am opposed to these wholesale cuts at a time like this. Can I

      1129
      urge the Government to give genuine consideration to the positive suggestions being made by the Institution of Professional Civil servants which call for the forming of a new united institute which could work from the two locations in Mid-Lothian and Aberdeen? It would be sensible because it would provide a focus of activity both in the north and south of Scotland which could meet the needs of both parts of the country.
      I would like to mention the cuts in the state veterinary service, because I think that that is relevant to what we are talking about tonight, and the centre at Casswade in Mid-Lothian, which is being closed.
      I fear that the cuts will undermine the genuinely vital service and could increase the hazards not only to animal health, but also to human health in Scotland. We all know that some animal health problems can give rise to a risk to human health too.
      I put it to the Minister that the Government must stand condemned in its contempt for rural Scotland, the farming industry, and the staff of the Scottish agricultural colleges and institutes. We demand a proper constructive review of the system, which must include adequate funding to help to guide the Scottish agricultural industry through these times of fundamental change.
      12 midnight
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John MacKay): The purpose of these amendments would have been to ensure that the provision of advisory and related services in Scotland would be the same as in England and Wales. That was not obvious from the hon. Member's speech, because the last thing that he did was to speak to the two amendments in his name.
      We are proud in Scotland of our distinctive system, a key element of which is the Scottish agricultural colleges, generally independent of Government, though deriving a substantial proportion of their income from Government, and able to integrate advisory, research and development and education services.
      Section 4 of the Small Landholders (Scotland) Act 1911 has been seen as the main vehicle by which the Secretary of State for Scotland can provide advice and services through the colleges. The terms of this section are broadly drawn and they have proved sufficiently flexible over the best part of the century to allow changing levels and patterns of service to be provided.
      Existing legislation already provides sufficient cover for the Secretary of State for Scotland to fund, and thus guide, the provision made by the colleges for the advisory and related services. Further legislation as suggested in amendments by the hon. Member is strictly unnecessary, and can only put in question the adequacy of that existing legislation. Far from clarifying the position, as is not unusual with the hon. Member, he could only create uncertainty.
      The advisory services north and south of the border have always marched broadly in step. The idea that the cuts in Scotland will be as drastic as an hon. Member was suggesting is totally misleading. The idea that a 41 per cent. reduction in expenditure will lead to a 75 per cent. reduction in staff is also misleading, and causes alarm amongst the people whom I presume the Opposition want it to cause alarm to.
      1130
      He himself said that there was some agreement on the merit of the new united institution. I think he also mentioned one of the trade unions involved. He knows that both institutions favour that concept, and the governing body of the MacAuley recently issued a statement to that effect.
      The idea is an exciting one, and one which a lot of people agree with. The contentious question is where the institution should be cited.
      A group is currently studying the options available to us for the citing of the institution, whether Aberdeen or Edinburgh, or a combination of the two. It will not do any good to prejudge what that group is going to advise us on the question of citing.
      Mr. Michael Forsyth: Could I urge my hon. Friend to give as much weight to the arguments which have been put by the hon. Gentleman as is reflected by the attendance of Opposition Members? The fact that there is only one of them present surely indicates that there is not as much feeling about this as an issue as he has given us to understand.
      Mr. MacKay: My hon. Friend has made a valid point, but any of my hon. Friends who have listened to the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) will know that he is a great man for generating heat, if a little light. Obviously his colleagues know that and have pushed off to their beds.
      As independent companies, the Scottish agricultural colleges do not require statutory authority to raise charges. It would be undesirable for Ministers to exercise the degree of control over such companies suggested in the hon. Member's amendments. None the less, as the major funding body for the colleges, my Department can exercise close oversight over their activities and we shall expect the spread and level of charges to be determined only after close consultation with the Department.
      I ask my hon. Friends to resist the amendments on the grounds that they are unnecessary, confusing and therefore undesirable, but most particularly because they are wholly inappropriate to the present distinctive arrangements for providing advisory and related services in Scotland. If the hon. Member does not seek to withdraw I hope my hon. Friends will join me in the Lobby.
      Amendment negatived.

    Clause 4

      CONSTITUTION AND FUNCTIONS OF HOME-GROWN CEREALS AUTHORITY
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: We now come to Government amendment No. 8, with which it will be convenient to consider amendment No. 9 and Government amendment No. 10.
      Amendments made: No. 8, in page 3, line 16, leave out `eleven' and insert `twelve'.
      No. 10, in page 4, line 1, leave out from beginning to end of line 8 and insert—
      '(4A) The Ministers shall appoint one of the members appointed under paragraph (a) of subsection (3) of this section to be chairman and another to be deputy chairman of the Authority.'.—[Mr. Gummer.]
      Mr. Home Robertson: I had better move amendment No. 9.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has missed his chance. I have put the Question on amendment No. 10.
      Amendment made: No. 11, in page 4, line 18, after 'cereals"', insert 'and for the words "the marketing of cereals" there shall be substituted the words "the production or marketing of cereals.".'.—[Mr. Gummer.]

    Clause 6

      EXTENSION OF CEREALS MARKETING ACT 1965 TO NEW CEREALS AND OTHER CROPS
      Amendments made: No. 12, in page 6, line 35, after `(a)', insert 'herbage seed, flax and'.
      No. 13, in page 6, line 39, at end insert—
      '(d) any other arable crop (except sugar, hops, potatoes or any horticultural produce within the meaning of section 8(1) of the Horticulture Act 1960).'.—[Mr. Gummer.]

    Clause 7
      CONSTITUTION AND LEVY SCHEMES OF MEAT AND LIVESTOCK COMMISSION
      Amendment made: No. 14, in page 7, line 23, leave out 'eleven' and insert 'fifteen'.—[Mr. Gummer.]
    Clause 12

      DESIGNATION AND MANAGEMENT OF ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS
      Mr. Maclennan: I beg to move amendment No. 18, in page 11, line 4, leave out 'person' and insert 'landlord and tenant'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
      No. 19, in page 11, line 4, leave out 'having an interest in' and insert 'farming'.
      No. 20, in line 5, leave out 'that person agrees' and insert 'those persons agree'.
      No. 22, in line 27, at end insert—
      `( ) Prior to the making of an agreement with a tenant of agricultural land, the Minister shall notify the owner of that land of the terms offered to the tenant and shall provide the owner with a copy of the agreement. '.
      No. 23, in line 28, leave out subsection (7).
      Mr. Maclennan: I move the amendment, admittedly at a late stage in the proceedings on the Bill, to get clarification from the Government about the arrangements which they may make under the provisions in the clause for the designation and management of environmentally sensitive areas, and to seek elucidation as to with whom the Government intend that the arrangements should be made.
      It seems that both landlord and tenant would have an interest in the arrangement, although normally it would be the tenant, if there is a tenant, who would be most immediately involved in the sense of his income being affected by the recompense for the implementation of the management agreement. None the less, the use of different techniques by the tenant could affect the capital value of the land and might even affect the rent. Therefore, it would be interesting to know how the Government see it. The use of the word "person" which I seek to have substituted
      1132
      might cover both landlord and tenant, but, as I read the clause, it is not necessarily so. I should be grateful for the Minister's elucidation.
      Mr. Stuart Randall: The purpose of amendment No. 19 is to make clear with whom the agreement about environmentally sensitive areas will be made. Clause 12 (4) says that the agreement may be made between the Minister and somebody
      "having an interest in agricultural land".
      I carefully read the Minister of State's notes. As he knows, I was not on the Committee, and I found that his explanation of the matter was quite clear. I noted that he was anxious to ensure that the terms used were sufficiently broad to make sure that one did not write any person or group out of the legislation.
      The term,
      "any person having an interest in agricultural land"
      is so broad that it makes that part of the clause misleading. Our amendment seeks to remove that term and substitute "a person farming agricultural land." The amendment will ensure that the agreement cannot be unfairly exploited by landowners, especially landowners who do not work the land.
      The second aim of the amendment is to ensure that any ESA grants or moneys go direct to tenants, because they are the people who farm the land and who could lose the use of productive land or find that their agricultural output is reduced as a result of the experiment. In its submission the National Farmers Union said:
      "Agreements should whenever possible be entered into with the person who has the right to determine the practices followed."
      Clearly, that says that it is the tenant to whom we should be referring.
      There is a need to make the wording of the clause more specific for the purposes of clarification. In Committee the Minister made a fair point when he said that there is a need to ensure flexibility to cater for all the cases and for the range of cases to which the ESAs and the various agreements will refer. For example, one could have an agreement between the Minister and a tenant, and one could also have sub-tenancies and grazing rights and all these things need to be catered for. The phrase "farming agricultural land" makes it clear that the clause is still broadly based and caters for the range of cases for which it needs to cater without the need for subsequent amendments to the legislation.
      The words, "having an interest in" are too general and could lead to abuse. Some landlords have an interest in their land but do not actually farm it, and the clause as presented could be taken to embrace landlords who do not work the land. That is not what the clause should be about. For too long we have been damaging our environment, and the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth), who will lose his seat at the next general election, ought to concern himself about these matters. When I lived in his constituency, I was aware and, indeed, was continually told by people in the constituency, how he neglected it. Rather than barracking, he ought to think about his own constituents and about some of the ESAs because they would be useful in his constituency.
      If an ESA is to be a success, the prerequisite is that it must be seen to be fair. Fairness is crucial. This means that we must compensate tenants for the loss of productive capacity and output, which obviously affects their incomes.

      1133
      In addition to ensuring that they get all this money, there must be an incentive to participate in the scheme and make sure that it works effectively. We all know that landlords have a lot of practical and financial influence and many powers. This means that they have enormous inherent advantages. They can, for example, determine tenancy agreements when there is a change of tenancies, and whether an ESA continues. The amendment attempts to counter this inherent advantage and to provide a more balanced arrangement.
      We also believe that the agreement should be directly with the tenant, namely, the person who farms the land. We believe that it would not be unreasonable for the landlord to be informed of the agreement. It is not difficult to think of instances where certain interests of landlords could be affected in a detrimental way.
      There are two reasons why landlords should not worry about an amendment of this kind. First, the agreements are voluntary in nature, and last for about five years only. The full support of the tenants is vital to the success of any agreement. It is important that tenants get the full financial compensation. If not, the ESA scheme will fail. We believe that this will be bad for Britain.
      We say that the amendment is accurate, broadly based and indicates clearly that the agreement is to be with those who farm the land. We hope that the Minister will take this into account.
      If I may deal briefly with amendment No. 22, on the face of it it looks not unreasonable, but I would like to have the Minister's interpretation of the words
      "notify the owner of that land of the terms offered to the tenant".
      The amendment states that the landlords should be notified beforehand of the changes and agreements. Does notify mean notify, or does it provide the landlord with an opportunity to take part—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd) is waiting to explain his amendment to the House. It might be more convenient for the House to listen to the hon. Gentleman before it starts to make up its mind on the amendment.
      Mr. Randall: That is a good idea. I take your advice on that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall wait to hear what the hon. Gentleman has to say, and I shall respond to it afterwards.
      12.15 am
      Mr. Colin Shepherd: I am grateful for the opportunity to intervene, and I shall speak very briefly to amendments Nos. 22 and 23. During the Committee proceedings, the CLA was worried lest there be misunderstanding that amendment No. 22 sought provision for prior consent by a landlord before a tenant could enter into an agreement with an ESA. That was not the case. The CLA was seeking to ensure that the owner was made aware of the fact that an agreement was being entered into and the terms of that agreement. Apart from wishing to know about management decisions affecting his land, the owner should be informed of any financial arrangements entered into by the tenant that may well be material in rent reviews.
      The Minister replied that the MAFF would
      "normally want the landlord to take his full part in the agreement".
      He also said:
      1134
      "First, we shall be discussing the matter with all those concerned. Secondly, in agreeing with a tenant we shall require him to notify the owners".—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 28 January 1986; c. 259–61.]
      If that is to be the case, the CLA feels that the Act should say clearly that the owner is to be notified. For the benefit of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall), it is the pure dictionary definition of the word "notify". The Act should also state whether the tenant or the Minister should notify.
      In Committee, the Minister gave repeated assurances that no agreement would be binding on anyone who did not voluntarily enter into it, nor on one who was not party to it. In view of that, it would be preferable to delete a clause that seeks to bind successors in title—hence the reason for amendment No. 23. I very much hope that my right hon. Friend will give sympathetic consideration to accepting these two amendments because they put straight matters that were subject to confusion or misunderstanding in Committee.
      Mr. Gummer: I shall deal first with the amendments that were introduced by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan). It is difficult to accept them. If they were inserted in the Bill, it would mean that the Minister would be able to make an agreement only with the landlord and the tenant. I hope that the hon. Gentleman agrees that that is not what he would wish us to do, because there will be occasions on which one might wish to make an agreement with an owner-occupier. That would not be possible if this change were made, and one might wish to make other agreements with the tenant without reference to the landlord, although it will be insisted that the tenant must notify the landlord.
      It may be that we shall wish to reach agreement with a tenant on a matter that is purely in the direct interest of the tenant. We want to be as flexible as possible in our arrangements. That is the purpose of the ESAs. They are experimental areas, and all sides of the House will agree that we want to keep them as such so that we can learn from them and perhaps build upon them.
      If that is so, it is important that we do not tie anyone down to a precise formula of the kind that would involve making an agreement only with the landlord and tenant. I am keen that it should not be as narrow as that, and I am sure that the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland will not wish to press the amendment, given that it has an unfortunate side effect which I do not think he intended.
      Mr. Maclennan: I am not sure whether it has that unfortunate side effect, but perhaps that is a matter of interpretation. The Minister's intentions are important. What does he mean by a person having an interest in land? In a case involving landlord and tenant, does he mean merely the tenant? If that is so, he has at least cleared up part of my uncertainty, but I am not satisfied that the landlord should not have a say in such cases.
      Mr. Gummer: What we mean is precisely what we have said about persons having an interest in the land. We want to have an agreement with the person who can deliver on the subject on which the agreement is made. These agreements will be very wide. We shall be making various kinds of agreement, different circumstances, and different arrangements. Some will be minor, some major, in the impact they have upon farming patterns. In all cases, in dealing with a tenant we shall require that the tenant

      1135
      informs the landlord. That is a requirement that we shall lay down, and I have given an absolute commitment to that which I repeat this evening.
      What we do need, however, is to be able to have that agreement with the person who has the interest in the land and who can deliver the goods, so to speak, the person who is carrying out the activity or is involved in the activity on which we wish to get agreement. I am sorry that it is as broad as this, but, if we are experimenting in the way that we wish, we do not want to get into the position the hon. Gentleman would put us in, that of having to agree with the landlord and tenant in circumstances where we need an agreement only with the tenant, only with the landlord or where we want to have an agreement with the owner-occupier. The amendment would mean that we could have none of those separately but only one in combination. It is more than unnecessary; it would be onerous and wrong to write into the legislation what is contained in the amendment.
      Mr. Randall: Just a very quick point of clarification. I take the Minister's point about flexibility. It is just that when one looks at this particular clause one immediately has the impression that, if the courts had to interpret it, they would see the main motive not as looking after the interests of the tenant and ensuring that all the money goes to the tenant, but providing loopholes for the landlord, who might not necessarily farm the land, to get his hands on some of the money. This is really what I should like an assurance on from the Minister.
      Mr. Gummer: The purpose of the money is to achieve the end that we have in mind; therefore, the money is provided to the person who can deliver the goods. I am putting it as broadly as that because I hope that the hon. Gentleman, in following very carefully, as I know he has been doing, the Hansard report of the Committee, will see that we are concerned with a whole range of different agreements. So I am putting it as broadly as that to cover the whole range of deals that we may do in order to protect the environmentally sensitive areas. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the purpose is to use that money to recompense people who would otherwise have farmed in a different way, so, in a very large proportion of cases, they will he the farmers.
      I do not want to be tied to "the farmer", for the reason that, if we put in "farmer", as the hon. Gentleman would wish, it would mean that we were tied then to doing the deal only with the tenant, if it was a tenancy that was involved. I can envisage circumstances in which that would be inhibiting. Let us take, for example, a situation in which there might soon be a change of tenancy. One might want to have a tripartite agreement between the existing tenant, the landlord and the Ministry, in order to ensure that a number of aspects of the matter were taken into account. Sometimes we might want to link together a group of people; under the amendment, we could not actually do that. That is why we think that it would be a mistake. We want to be in a position where we can make an agreement with the landlord if that is the person with whom it can most properly be made, and where, if we need to make an agreement with landlord and tenant, we can do that.
      We have been perfectly straight about it: if the experiment is to work we must have the opportunity of
      1136
      trying to find the best agreement in the circumstances, so that we can look at all these five or six places and see how they work, in order to learn one from another.
      I hope that Opposition Members will accept that and will not feel it necessary to press these amendments. It is right for them to have raised the amendments, but I feel that to be more precise here than we have been will be to put ourselves into a more difficult position.
      Turning to the amendments of my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd), I had hoped that we had dealt with these earlier, in Committee. I repeat that I am absolutely committed to requiring the tenant to notify the landlord when there has been an agreement with the tenant. I do not want to include a specific provision on this point in the clause because we have not gone into detail about this in all the other areas of which we have been speaking. It would be a very peculiar general enabling position if the only thing that we put into it was that in the case of a tenancy we would require the tenant to notify the landlord. I give an absolute assurance that that is what we shall do. That is the way in which we shall conduct these experiments. In the light of that absolute assurance, I ask my hon. Friend whether he would feel able to withdraw his amendment.
      The clause could so easily have become a pantechnicon of bits and pieces—each perfectly reasonable—and would have become unwieldy. We would gradually have moved to a position where the experiments would have been far too regimented. For the sake of others, I ask my hon. Friend to withdraw—
      Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder. The amendment was selected for debate, not for a possible Division. It has not been moved.
      Mr. Gummer: It would be right to leave the position as it is because to do otherwise would complicate the matter and lead others to feel that other things should be added. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept my assurances.
      My hon. Friend referred to a succession of tenancies. We are thinking in terms of five-year agreements, so any agreement passed on to the next tenant would not be very onerous. It is necessary to have some continuity. As we are talking about the defence and protection of sensitive areas, we are keen that the agreement should be given a reasonable run. If there is a change of tenancy, it would not be onerous for the agreement to be passed on for its duration. We do not want to be tied entirely to the norm of a five-year agreement because, for experimental purposes, we might try slightly shorter or even slightly longer periods. It would be a small price to pay for some degree of continuity.
      I am sure that my hon. Friend will appreciate that to have all but one tied to a five-year agreement, with the one split because of a transfer from one tenant to another, would be damaging to the experiment. I hope that he accepts my assurance that it is less onerous than the provision in section 39(3) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act, under which agreements can extend for an unspecified and much longer period. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept this shorter period.
      Mr. Maclennan: I remain a little uneasy about the wording for fear that an agreement reasonably entered into

      1137
      between the Minister and one party with an interest in the land may adversely affect the interests of another party such as the tenant or the landlord.
      I admit that my concern has not been voiced strongly by outside interests, so it would be inappropriate to press the amendment.
      I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 15

      SHORT TITLE, COMMENCEMENT, CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS, REPEALS AND EXTENT
      Amendments made: No. 25, in page 14, line 18, leave out from '8' to 'shall' in line 19 and insert
      '10 and section [Compensation to outgoing tenants for milk quota] and the repeals consequential on sections 8 to 10'.
      No. 26, in page 14, line 20, leave out
      'responsible for agriculture in the different parts of the United Kingdom'.
      No. 27, in page 14, line 25, at end insert
      'and in this subsection "the Ministers" means the Ministers responsible for agriculture in the parts of the United Kingdom to which the provision in question extends'.
      No. 29, in page 14, line 34, leave out
      'Section 1 of this Act does'
      and insert
      'Sections 1 and [Compensation to outgoing tenants for milk quota] above and Schedule [Tenants' compensation for milk quota] to this Act do'.—[Mr. Jopling.]

  NEW SCHEDULE
    TENANTS' COMPENSATION FOR MILK QUOTA Part I

      Right to Compensation
      Tenants' right to compensation
      1.—(1) Subject to the following provisions of this Schedule, where on the termination of the tenancy of any land the tenant has milk quota registered as his in relation to a holding consisting of or including the land, the tenant shall be entitled, on quitting the land, to obtain from his landlord a payment—

      (a) if the tenant had milk quota allocated to him in relation to land comprised in the holding ("allocated quota") in respect of so much of the relevant quota as consists of allocated quota; and

      (b) if the tenant had milk quota allocated to him as aforesaid or was in occupation of the land as a tenant on 2nd April 1984 (whether or not under the tenancy which is terminating), in respect of so much of the relevant quota as consists of transferred quota transferred to him by virtue of a transaction the cost of which was borne wholly or partly by him.

      (2) In sub-paragraph (1) above—
      "the relevant quota" means—

      (a) in a case where the holding mentioned in subsection (1) above consists only of the land subject to the tenancy, the milk quota registered in relation to the holding; and

      (b) otherwise, such part of that milk quota as falls to be apportioned to that land on the termination of the tenancy;

      "transferred quota" means milk quota transferred to the tenant by virtue of the transfer to him of the whole or part of a holding.
      (3) A tenant shall not be entitled to more than one payment under this paragraph in respect of the same land.
      Succession on death or retirement of tenant
      2.—(1) This paragraph applies where on the termination of the tenancy of any land after 2nd April 1984 a new tenancy of the land or part of the land has been granted to a different tenant ("the new tenant") and that tenancy—
      1138

      (a) was obtained by virtue of a direction under section 39 or 53 of the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 (direction for grant of tenancy to successor on death or retirement of previous tenant);

      (b) was granted (following a direction under section 39 of that Act) in circumstances within section 45(6) of that Act (new tenancy granted by agreement to persons entitled to tenancy under direction); or

      (c) is such a tenancy as is mentioned in section 37(1) (b) or (2) of that Act (tenancy granted by agreement to close relative).

      (2) Where this paragraph applies—

      (a) any milk quota allocated or transferred to the former tenant (or treated as having been allocated or transferred to him) in respect of the land which is subject to the new tenancy shall be treated as if it had been allocated or transferred to the new tenant; and

      (b) in a case where milk quota is treated under paragraph (a) above as having been transferred to the new tenant, he shall be treated as if he had paid so much of the cost of the transaction by virtue of which the milk quota was transferred as the former tenant bore (or is treated as having borne).

      (3) Sub-paragraph (1) above applies in relation to the grant of a new tenancy before the date on which the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 comes into force as if the references in that sub-paragraph to section 39, 53 and 45(6) of that Act were references to section 20 of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976, paragraph 5 of Shedule 2 to the Agricultural Holdings Act 1984 and section 23(6) of the said Act of 1976 respectively.
      Assignments
      3. Where the tenancy of any land has been assigned after 2nd April 1984 (whether by deed or by operation of law)—

      (a) any milk quota allocated or transferred to the assignor (or treated as having been allocated or transferred to him) in respect of the land shall be treated as if it had been allocatd or transferred to the assignee; and

      (b) in a case where milk quota is treated under paragraph (a) above as having been transferred to the assignee, he shall be treated as if he had paid so much of the cost of the transaction by virtue of which the milk quota was transferred as the assignor bore (or is treated as having borne);

      and accordingly the assignor shall not be entitled to a payment under paragraph 1 above in respect of that land.
      Sub-tenancies
      4. Where the sub-tenancy of any land terminates after 2nd April 1984 then, for the purposes of determining the sub-landlord's entitlement under paragraph 1 above—

      (a) any milk quota allocated or transferred to the sub-tenant (or treated as having been allocated or transferred to him) in respect of the land shall be treated as if it had been allocated or transferred to the sub-landlard;

      (b) in a case where milk quota is treated under paragraph (a) above as having been transferred to the sub-landlord, he shall be treated as if he had paid so much of the cost of the transaction by virtue of which the milk quota was transferred as the sub-tenant bore (or is treated as having borne); and

      (c) if the sub-landlord does not occupy the land after the sub-tenancy has ended and the sub-tenant has quitted the land, the sub-landlord shall be taken to have quitted the land when the sub-tenant quitted it.

      PART II

        AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION PAYABLE
        Calculation of payment
        5.—(1) The amount of the payment to which the tenant of any land is entitled under paragraph 1 above on the termination of his tenancy shall be determined in accordance with the following provisions of this paragraph.
        (2) The amount of the payment to which the tenant is entitled under paragraph 1 above in respect of allocated quota shall be an amount equal—

        (i) in a case where the allocated quota exceeds the standard quota for the land, to the value of the sum of—

        (ii) the amount of the excess:

        1139

        (b) in a case where the allocated quota is equal to the standard quota, to the value of the tenant"s fraction of the allocated quota; and

        (c) in a case where the allocated quota is less than the standard quota, to the value of such proportion of the tenant's fraction of the allocated quota as the allocated quota bears to the standard quota.

        (3) The amount of the payment the tenant is entitled to under paragraph 1 above in respect of the transferred quota shall be an amount equal—

        (a) in a case where the tenant bore the whole of the cost of the transaction by virtue of which the transferred quota was transferred to him, to the value of the transferred quota; and

        (b) in a case where the tenant bore only part of that cost, to the value of the corresponding part of the transferred quota.

        "Standard quota"
        6.—(1) Subject to the following provisions of this paragraph, the standard quota for any land for the purposes of this Schedule shall be taken to the number of litres of cow's milk which could reasonably be expected to have been produced from the land in a period of 12 months.
        (2) The number mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) above shall be calculated—

        (a) by reference to the average number of hectares of the land used during the relevant period for the feeding of dairy cows kept on the land; and

        (b) on the assumption that the amount of milk produced from one hectare of land in a period of 12 months is such amount as the Minister may by order prescribe.

        (3) An order under sub-paragraph (2) above may make different provision for different cases.
        (4) Where—

        (a) the average number of hectares of the land in question which could reasonably be expected to have been used during the relevant period for the feeding of dairy cows kept on the land (having regard to the number of grazing animals other than dairy cows fed from the land during that period) is substantially greater or less than the average number referred to in sub-paragraph (2)(a) above; or

        (b) the amount of milk which could reasonably be expected to have been produced from one hectare of the land in question during the relevant period is substantially greater or less than the amount prescribed under sub-paragraph (2) (b) above, then that number or, as the case may he, amount shall be adjusted accordingly.

        (5) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) above a number or amount shall be taken to be substantially greater or less than another only if it exceeds, or, as the case may be, falls short of that other by an amount equal to or greater than 20 per cent. of that other.
        (6) The power to make an order under this paragraph shall be exercisable by statutory instrument and any statutory instrument containing such an order shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
        (7) In this paragraph references to the feeding of animals are to grazing and feeding from harvested crops (other than loose grain) and references to dairy cows are to cows kept for milk production.
        "Tenant' s fraction"
        7.—(1) For the purposes of this Schedule "the tenant's fraction" means the fraction of which—

        (a) the numerator is the annual rental value at the end of the relevant period of the tenant's dairy improvements and fixed equipment; and

        (b) the denominator is the sum of that value and such part of the rent payable by the tenant in respect of the relevant period as is attributable to the land used in that period in connection with the production of cow's milk.

        (2) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1)(a) above the rental value of the tenant's dairy improvements and fixed equipment shall be taken to be the amount which would fall to be disregarded under paragraph 2(1) of Schedule 2 to the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 on a reference made in respect of the land in question under section 12 of that Act (arbitration
        1140
        of rent), so far as that amount is attributable to tenant's improvements or tenant's fixed equipment which are relevant to the production of cow's milk.
        (3) Where—

        (a) the relevant period is less than or greater than 12 months or

        (b) rent was only payable by the tenant in respect cif part of the relevant period,

        the average rent payable in respect of one month in the relevant period or, as the case may be, in that part shall be deterinined and the rent referred to in sub-paragraph (1)(b) above shall be taken to be the corresponding annual amount.
        (4) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) above "tenant's improvements" and "tenant's fixed equipment" have the same meanings as in paragraph 2 of Schedule 2 to the 1986 Act, except that—

        (a) any allowance made or benefit given by the landlord after the end of the relevant period in consideration of the execution of improvements wholly or partly at the expense of the tenant shall be disregarded for the purposes of sub-paragraph (2)(a) of that paragraph;

        (b) any compensation received by the tenant after the end of the relevant period in respect of any improvement or fixed equipment shall be disregarded for the purposes of sub-paragraph (3) of that paragraph; and

        (c) where paragraph 2 above applies in respect of any land, improvements or equipment which would be regarded as tenant's improvements or equipment on the termination of the former tenant's tenancy (if he were entitled to a payment under this Schedule in respect of that land) shall be regarded as the new tenant's improvements or equipment.

        "Relevant period"
        8. In this Schedule "the relevant period" means—

        (a) the period in relation to which the allocated quota was determined; or

        (b) where it was determined in relation to more than one period, the period in relation to which the majority was determined or, if equal amounts were determined in relation to different periods, the later of those periods.

        Valuation of milk quota
        9. The value of milk quota to be taken into account for the purposes of paragraph 5 above is the value of the milk quota at the time of the termination of the tenancy in question and in determining that value at that time there shall be taken into account such evidence as is avaialble, including evidence as to the sums being paid for freehold and leasehold interests in land—

        (a) in cases where milk quota is registered in relation to the land; and

        (b) in cases where no milk quota is so registered.

      PART III

        SUPPLEMENTAL PROVISIONS
        Determination of standard quota and tenant's fraction before end of tenancy
        10.—(1) Where, on the termination of a tenancy of any land, the tenant may be entitled to a payment under paragraph 1 above, the landlord or tenant may at any time before the termination of the tenancy by notice in writing served on the other demand that the determination of the standard quota for the land or the tenant's fraction shall be referred to arbitration.
        (2) On a reference under this paragraph the arbitrator shall determine the standard quota for the land or, as the case may be, the tenant's fraction (so far as determinable at the date of the reference).
        (3) Section 84 of the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 (arbitrations) shall apply as if the matters mentioned in this paragraph were required by that Act to be determined by arbitration under that Act.
        Settlement of tenant's claim on termination of tenancy
        11.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this paragraph, any claim arising under paragraph I above shall be determined by arbitration under the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 and no such claim shall be enforceable unless before the expiry of the period of two months from the termination of the tenancy the tenant serves notice in writing on his landlord of his intention to make the claim.
        (2) The landlord and tenant may within the period of eight months from the termination of the tenancy by agreement in

        1141
        writing settle the claim but where the claim has not been settled during that period it shall be determined by arbitration under the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986.
        (3) Where a tenant lawfully remains in occupation of part of the land subject to the tenancy after the termination of the tenancy, the references in sub-paragraphs (1) and (2) above to the termination of the tenancy shall be construed as references to the termination of the occupation.
        (4) Section 84 of the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 (arbitrations) shall apply as if the requirements of this paragaphah were requirements of that Act, but paragraph 18 of Schedule 11 to that Act (arbitration awards to fix days for payment not later than one month after award) shall have effect for the purposes of this paragraph as if for the words "one month" there were substituted the words "three months".
        (5) Where—

        (a) before the termination of the tenancy of any land the landlord and tenant have agreed in writing the amount of the standard quota for the land or the tenant's fraction or the value of milk quota which is to be used for the purpose of calculating the payment to which the tenant will be entitled under this Schedule on the termination of the tenancy; or

        (b) the standard quota or the tenant's fraction has been determined by arbitration in pursuance of paragraph 10 above,

        the arbitrator determining the claim under this paragraph shall, subject to sub-paragraph (6) below, award payment in accordance with that agreement or determination.
        (6) Where it appears to the arbitrator that any circumstances relevant to the agreement or determination mentioned in subparagraph (5) above were materially different at the time of the termination of the tenancy from those at the time the agreement or determination was made, he shall disregard so much of the agreement or determination as appears to him to be affected by the change in circumstances.
        Enforcement
        12.—Section 85 of the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 (enforcement) and section 86(1), (3) and (4) of that Act (power of landlord to obtain charge on holding) shall apply to any sum which becomes due to a tenant by virtue of this Schedule as they apply to the sums mentioned in those sections.
        Termination of tenancy of part of tenanted land
        13.—References in this Schedule to the termination of a tenacy of land include references to the resumption of possession of part of the land subject to the tenancy—

        (a) by the landlord by virtue of section 31 or 43(2) of the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 (notice to quit part);

        (b) by the landlord in pursuance of a provision in the contract of tenancy; or

        (c) by a person entitled to a severed part of the reversionary estate in the land by virtue of a notice to quit that part given to the tenant by virtue of section 140 of the Law of Property Act 1925;

        and in the case mentioned in paragraph (c) above this Schedule shall apply as if the person resuming possession were the landlord of the land of which he resumes possession.
        Severing of reversionary estate
        14.—(1) Where the reversionary estate in the land is for the time being vested in more than one person in several parts, the tenant shall be entitled, on quitting all the land, to require that any amount payable to him under this Schedule shall be determined as if the reversionary estate were not so severed.
        (2) Where sub-paragraph (1) above applies, the arbitrator shall, where necessary, apportion the amount awarded between the persons who for the purposes of this Schedule together constitute the landlord of the land, and any additional costs of the award, caused by the apportionment shall be paid by those persons in such proportions as the arbitrator may determine.
        Powers of limited owners
        15. Notwithstanding that a landlord of any land is not the owner in fee simple of the land or, in a case where his interest is an interest in a leasehold, that he is not absolutely entitled to
        1142
        the leasehold, he may for the purposes of this Schedule do anything which he might do if he were such an owner or, as the case may be, were so entitled.
        Notices
        16.—(1) Any notice under this Schedule shall be duly served on the person on whom it is to be served if it is delivered to him, or left at his proper address, or sent to him by post in a registered letter or by the recorded delivery service.
        (2) Any such notice shall be duly served on an incorporated company or body if it is served on the secretary or clerk of the company or body.
        (3) Any such notice to be served on a landlord or tenant of any land shall, where an agent or servant is responsible for the control of the management or farming, as the case may be, of the land, be duly served if served on that agent or servant.
        (4) For the purposes of this paragraph and of section 7 of the Interpretation Act 1978 (service by post), the proper address of any person on whom any such notice is to be served shall, in the case of the secretary or clerk of an incorporated company or body, be that of the registered or principal office of the company or body, and in any other case be the last known address of the person in question.
        (5) Unless or until the tenant of any land has received—

        (a) notice that the person who before that time was entitled to receive the rents and profits of the land ("the original landlord") has ceased to be so entitled, and

        (b) notice of the name and address of the person who has become entitled to receive the rents and profits,

        any notice served on the original landlord by the tenant shall be deemed for the purposes of this Schedule to have been served on the landlord of the land.
        Crown land
        17.—(1) The provisions of this Schedule shall apply to land which belongs to Her Majesty in right of the Crown or to the Duchy of Lancaster, the Duchy of Cornwall or a Government department or which is held in trust for Her Majesty for the purposes of a Government department, subject in each case to such modifications as the Minister may by regulations prescribe.
        (2) For the purposes of this Schedule—

        (a) as respects land belonging to Her Majesty in right of the Crown, the Crown Estate Commissioners or the proper officer of body having charge of the land for the time being, or, if there is no such officer or body, such person as Her Majesty may appoint in writing under the Royal Sign Manual, shall represent Her Majesty and shall be deemed to be the landlord;

        (b) as respects land belonging to Her Majesty in right of the Duchy of Lancaster, the Chancellor of the Duchy shall represent Her Majesty and shall be deemed to be the landlord;

        (c) as respects land belonging to the Duchy of Cornwall such persons as the Duke of Cornwall or the possessor for the time being of the Duchy of Cornwall appoints shall represent the Duchy and shall be deemed to be the landlord and may do any act or thing which a landlord is authorised or required to do under this Act;

        (d) as respects land held in trust for Her Majesty for the purposes of a Government department, that department shall represent Her Majesty and shall be deemed to be the landlord.

        (3) Any sum payable under this schedule by the Duke of Cornwall (or any other possessor for the time being of the Duchy of Cornwall) may be raised and paid as if it were an expense incurred in permanently improving the possessions of the Duchy as mentioned in section 8 of the Duchy of Cornwall Management Act 1863.
        (4) Any sum payable under this Schedule by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster may—

        (a) be raised and paid as if it were an expense incurred in the improvement of land belonging to Her Majesty in right of the Duchy within section 25 of the Duchy of Lancaster Act 1817, or

        (b) be paid out of the annual revenue of the Duchy.

        (5) The power to make regulations under this paragraph shall be exercisable by statutory instrument and any statutory instrument containing such regulations shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
        Interpretation
        18.—(1) In this Schedule—

        "allocated quota" has the meaning given in paragraph 1(1) above;

        "holding" has the same meaning as in the 1986 Regulations;

        "landlord" means any person for the time being entitled to receive the rents and profits of any land and "sub-landlord" shall be construed accordingly;

        "milk quota" means—

        (a) in the case of a tenant registered in the direct sales register maintained under the 1986 Regulations, a direct sales quota within the meaning of the 1986 Regulations, and

        (b) in the case of a tenant registered In the wholesale register maintained under those Regulations, a wholesale quota within the meaning of those Regulations;

        "the Minister" means—

        (a) in the case of land in England, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food; and

        (b) in the case of land in Wales, the Secretary of State;

        "registered", in relation to milk quota, means—

        (a) in the case of direct sales quota, within the meaning of the 1986 Regulations, registered in the direct sales register maintained under those Regulations, and

        (b) in the case of a wholesale quota, within the meaning of those Regulations, registered in a wholesale register maintained under those Regulations;

        "relevant quota" has the meaning given in paragraph 1(2) above;

        "standard quota" has the meaning given in paragraph 6 above;

        "the 1986 Regulations" means the Dairy Produce Quotas Regulations 1986;

        "tenancy" means a tenancy from year to year or a tenancy to which section 3 of the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 applies, and "tenant" and "sub-tenant" shall be construed accordingly

        "tenant's fraction" has the meaning given in paragraph 7 above;

        "termination", in relation to a tenancy, means the cesser of the letting of the land in question or the agreement for letting the land, by reason of effluxion of time or from any other cause;

        "transferred quota" has the meaning given in paragraph 1(2) above.

        (2) The designations of landlord and tenant shall continue to apply to the parties until the conclusion of any proceedings taken under or in pursuance of this Schedule.'.—[Mr. Jopling.]
        Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
        Motion made, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
        Mr. Michael Jopling, by Her Majesty's Command, acquainted the House, That Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Bill, gives her Consent, as far as Her Majesty's interest is concerned, That the House may do therein as it shall think fit.
        Mr. Michael Jopling, by Command of the Prince of Wales, acquainted the House, That His Royal Highness, having been informed of the purport of the Bill, gives his Consent, as far as the Prince of Wales's interest is concerned. That the House may do therein as it shall think fit.
        Question put and agreed to.
        Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

      CONSUMER PROTECTION
      Ordered,
      That the draft Child Resistant Packaging (Safety) Regulations 1986, which were laid before this House on 5th March, be approved.—[Mr. Malone.]

      Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme
      Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Malone.]
      12.30 am
      Sir Humphrey Atkins: It was almost exactly 22 years ago that the Government of the day, with the full approval of both Houses of Parliament, established the criminal injuries compensation scheme. The scheme was intended, and still is intended, to provide some measure of compensation to people who have suffered injury through criminal action and who are unable to get any kind of recompense, either because the criminal could not be identified or, if he was identified, was in no position to make any recompense himself. The scheme is administered by a board whose chairman and members are appointed by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and who make annual reports to Parliament. It is a measure of the general satisfaction with which Parliament regards the way the board has conducted its activities that, so far as I can trace, not one of these reports has ever been debated in this House.
      However, a situation has now come to light of which I believe the House would wish to he aware and I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for making himself available to answer this debate tonight. The situation arises from the events of October 1984 when a terrorist gang exploded a bomb in the Grand hotel at Brighton during the Conservative party conference. This fearful event led not only to much destruction of property but, far more seriously, to the death and serious injury of many people. We all, of course remember that one of our own number was killed and many of us here also remember the others who were killed.
      As a result of this crime, no fewer than 21 applications were made to the criminal injuries compensation board for compensation, 19 from civilians and two from the police. Naturally, applications such as these take a little time to process because, for example, it is not always possible to determine very quickly the precise extent of personal injury and, therefore, the loss of earning power or whatever it may be that may be permanently with the injured person. I do not know what has happened in the majority of these 21 cases, but I do have personal knowledge of three of them and it is these three that I would like to bring to the attention of the House.
      Let me say straightaway that I do not propose to identify the applicants. They have suffered enough and if I were to mention their names they would, I fear, be the subject of further publicity and inquiry and I am sure that none of us would wish to inflict that upon them. I will simply refer to them as applicants A, B and C, but my right hon. Friend, of course, knows precisely to whom I am referring in each case.
      Applicant A's claim was comparatively easy to process, although the injuries were serious in all conscience, and the boars: assessed the claim, made an offer, had the offer agreed and made the payment all within a comparatively short time and the whole matter was settled in the first half of last year. Applicant B's claim was more complicated and so the board, clearly accepting that the claim had validity, but without being able to determine the precise level of payment which

      1145
      should be made, gave applicant B an interim award which again was paid in the first half of last year. No further payment has been made, for a reason to which I will come back in a moment.
      Applicant C's claim was the most complicated of the three and the details could not be settled until the second half of last year. Here again the board has refused to make any further progress with this claim and applicant C has not yet received a penny piece. Since it became known that I was to raise this matter tonight, several other people have told me that they, too, have not yet received anything in respect of their claims following this same incident. Applicant C's case, therefore, is by no means unique.
      The board has given one reason and one only why it has brought to a halt all further work on these outstanding claims and why it is leaving these claimants without any payment over a period which now amounts to many months. It is that in June last year a man was arrested and a little later was charged with complicity in this bomb outrage, and the board takes the view that it cannot make any payments because, if it did, it might prejudice the fair trial of the accused. I must tell the House that I find that excuse completely unacceptable, and, what is perhaps even more important, completely untenable, for three reasons.
      The first is that I cannot for the life of me see why the making of a payment under the criminal injuries compensation scheme in respect of a crime has any bearing whatever upon the identity of the person who committed it. Mr. X, who has been charged, may or may not be guilty; I do not know, and the board does not know. Only the courts can decide, but, unless it is to be argued that the setting off of a bomb in the Grand hotel in Brighton is a perfectly lawful act and, therefore, no crime was committed, which everybody will agree is ludicrous, I cannot see why the fact that somebody had been charged prevents payments from being made.
      My second reason is that, even if that argument is accepted as valid, the pass has already been sold. As I mentioned earlier in the case of applicants A and B, payments have already been made, and for all I know other payments have been made, too. The chairman of the board, Mr. Ogden, speaking on "The World This Weekend" on the radio on Sunday, said that the first payment was made "a long time ago". That has no bearing on the matter. Either the making of payments is prejudicial to a fair trial, in which case he was wrong to make any payments, or, as I contend, it is not, in which case he is wrong to stop making payments now.
      My third reason is that Mr. Ogden and his board stand condemned by their words. Paragraph 43 of its 20th report to Parliament for the year ended 31 March 1984—Cmnd. 9399—discusses at some length the problems of making awards when criminal proceedings are pending and refers to such matters as the possibility that an accused might plead that injuries were inflicted by him in self-defence and matters of that sort.
      However, I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to one part of paragraph 43 where the board says:
      "However in cases as clear cut as bomb outrages, we do not consider ourselves so limited".
      It goes on to say:
      1146
      "Provided we are satisfied on the balance of probabilities after a detailed investigation that the application satisfies the requirements of…the scheme …then we feel able to make awards in such cases."
      I simply cannot understand why, in view of all that I have said, and of the board's words, the board is behaving in this extraordinary way today.
      The scheme was set up to provide some relief to people who had suffered injury and financial hardship. The scheme received the approval of Parliament when it was established, when it was revised in 1979 and, of course, again every single year when the money for the scheme, including the salary of the chairman, is voted by Parliament. Furthermore, our Select Committee on Home Affairs, which in 1984 investigated compensation and support for victims of crime, produced a report—its first report in Session 1984–85—and referred at some length to the need to avoid delay in payments.
      In paragraph 49 it said:
      "untoward delays in settlement can only detract from any satisfaction and consolation the victim might derive from the outcome of his claim: he gives twice who gives quickly".
      And yet here is this board quite deliberately delaying payment heedless, it seems, of the needs of the claimants.
      There is no reason to suppose that any or all of them are financially able to manage quite happily without any kind of compensation. Physical injury, loss of earning capacity, damage of all kinds make, as we all know, a devasting impact upon a family's finances. There can be little doubt—indeed, I know this for a fact—that a number of outstanding claimants are suffering considerable financial hardship. That is why Parliament willed that everything possible should be done as quickly as may be to try to help people in these unhappy circumstances.
      I know that Mr. Ogden, in the broadcast to which I referred earlier, said that it was open to anyone who felt that he had been badly treated by the board to go to the courts and ask for a ruling that he or she ought to be paid. If I may say so, this is a most unreasonable proposition. We all know the cost of legal proceedings and the suggestion that someone ought to put at risk possibly the whole amount of any award seems to me, although possibly legalistic, completely heartless.
      Having set out my view of the matter, I should like to ask my right hon. Friend two questions. First, does he agree with Mr. Ogden's statement that the correct course to follow is to withhold all further payments by way of compensation until the trial of anyone accused of complicity in the offence is completed, however long that may take? If he does, I know that he will wish to explain to the House in greater detail than is at present available why he thinks it is correct, and furthermore why it is that the scheme under which the board operates contains no reference to this provision and also why it is that the board never tells any claimant that the charging of anybody in connection with the offence will bring an immediate stop to any further action on his claim.
      If, however, he does not agree with Mr. Ogden, I come to my second question. What is my right hon. Friend going to do about it? There seems to be a rather grey area here. The scheme is non-statutory; therefore, there is no Act which lays down the powers and responsibilities of my right hon. Friend. Paragraph 3 of the scheme makes it clear that the board will be entirely responsible for what compensation should be paid in individual cases and its decisions should not be subject to appeal or ministerial review. I think that we would all agree that this is a

      1147
      sensible provision because otherwise my right hon. Friend would no doubt be inundated with requests for the review of awards.
      However, I draw attention to the fact that this provision specifically addresses the question of what compensation should be paid, not when it should be paid. Could my right hon. Friend tell the House please whether he has any power to give directions to the Board about how it should conduct its operations? If he does not have any such power, are we not in an intolerable situation?
      Here is a hoard, appointed by my right hon. Friend, responsible for the distribution to innocent victims of crime of £40 million a year of taxpayers' money, which we vote, seemingly able to withhold payment for months or even years on grounds which no one here believes to have any validity, and to behave in a way which is clearly contrary to the will of Parliament, whose Chairman claimed on the radio that he could not be removed from office, and my right hon. Friend can do nothing about it. If this is really the case, it is my view that the situation is wholly unacceptable. In this first debate on the matter—we can always return to it—I look forward to hearing my right hon. Friend's observations.
      12.44 am
      The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hurd): I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Sir H. Atkins) for raising this issue. It must be right that an important and sensitive issue, which affects people in circumstances with which every Member of this House has the utmost sympathy, should be raised in this House. My right hon. Friend, as one would expect, has deployed his case in a clear and impressive way.
      I should begin by explaining the role of Ministers in the criminal injuries compensation scheme. Criminal injuries compensation in England and Wales and Scotland is at present on a non-statutory basis, and awards are ex gratia. Governments have concluded that the system of criminal injuries compensation would be more orderly and satisfactory if set out in a formal scheme. This tells Parliament, applicants and the general public what they can expect, and provides a basis for judicial review of the board's decisions in individual cases. The scheme itself is the responsibility of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and myself. Under the terms of the scheme, compensation is administered by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, which is entirely responsible for deciding what compensation should be paid in individual cases. The board's decisions on such matters are not subject to appeal to Ministers or to ministerial review. The general working of the scheme is, however, a matter for review by the Government, and my colleagues and I take a keen interest in its operations, as I hope to show before I conclude. It is right on that basis that my right hon. Friend should bring his concerns before the House this evening.
      As one would expect, the scheme itself does not deal in detail with particular matters of administration, nor has it been the general practice of Ministers to intervene in such matters. The expectation is that, having set out in the scheme the main principles of eligibility for compensation and similar matters, and having appointed an independent board to administer the scheme, we can rely on the board to deal sensibly with the cases.
      1148
      As my right hon. Friend said, the Brighton explosion took place on 12 October 1984. In all, 32 people were injured, including five who were killed by the explosion or as a direct result of it. Police inquiries were, from their earliest stages, based on the premise that the explosion had been caused by a bomb. Press reports at the time were to the same effect. The board heard in September 1985 that the extensive police investigation had resulted in charges being brought.
      The Criminal Injuries Compensation Board received a total of 28 applications as a result of the incident. This figure updates that mentioned by my right hon. Friend. The latest position is that 10 of these applications have been resolved and awards made. Of the further 18 cases still awaiting resolution, in 11 cases the board does not yet have enough information to enable it to decide what award, if any, should be made: it needs further medical or other reports, and the delay in these cases has nothing to do with the criminal proceedings.
      Tonight, my right hon. Friend has focussed attention on the seven other cases which are otherwise considered ready to be put before a board member for a decision but which have been held up, as my right hon. Friend said, because of the impending criminal proceedings.
      The question how to mesh its own procedures with criminal proceedings is a question that the board may have to consider in every case which comes before it. It has to have a general rule, and the general rule which it has adopted is that where criminal proceedings are in train, the board will not reach a decision on the application to it until the trial result is known.
      Despite the apparent contradiction—to which my right hon. Friend understandably drew attention—with part of its 20th annual report, the board has explained that it has basically two reasons for this approach. First, if it takes a decision in the absence of information which may come out at the trial, its decision may be wrong. The extra information which may come out is not precisely foreseeable in advance, but the obvious category of information which is likely to be added at the trial is the defendant's own side of the story. The board has no power of its own to summon and question the alleged assailant, although it can take into account any information which is volunteered to it. I could elaborate at this point, as part of the board's general explanation, but I will not do so, because my right hon. Friend could say with justice that this is far from the present case.
      However, there is a second reason why the board is reluctant to make awards when criminal proceedings are pending, and this second reason is more relevant to this set of seven cases. In the view of the chairman of the board, there is a risk that a decision to award compensation could itself become an issue in the later proceedings and be a matter of embarrassment in those proceedings. For example—and this is the key point—the defence could argue that the trial had been prejudiced if a public body had previously reached a conclusion about the origin of an explosion.
      Where no alleged offender has been traced, the board obviously cannot wait for ever but must get on and do the best it can. If, later, someone is prosecuted, the fact that the board has made an award is not something anyone can do anything about.
      But the chairman of the board feels, as I understand it, that there is a notable difference between that situation and the one in which the board makes an award in the

      1149
      knowledge that a criminal case is pending. That is the board's answer to the point that my right hon. Friend made about the difference of treatment accorded by the board to the various cases.
      Sir John Stradling Thomas: I am sympathetic to the point that my right hon. Friend is making and that Mr. Michael Ogden made. But I cannot see any connection between the prejudicing of the case and the right to compensation for those who have suffered as victims. Under our system of law, that could be taken care of by the learned judges without prejudicing the trial of any culpable defendant in a trial and without having any relationship to the question of the right of the victim to compensation. Will my right hon. Friend address himself to that?
      Mr. Hurd: I am doing so. The board is entitled to make compensation only where there is a case of criminal assault, and I wish to develop carefully what I understand to be the board's interpretation of this and explain what support it has had, and in doing that I will cover the point that my hon. Friend makes.
      I was dealing with the difference between the situation to which I referred and the one in which the board makes an award in the knowledge that a criminal case is pending. As I said, that is the board's answer to my right hon. Friend's point about the difference of treatment accorded by the board to the various cases.
      Those which reached the settlement stage before criminal proceedings were instituted were settled. Those which did not have been held up. The thought here must be that, while the degree of actual prejudice may be the same, the disregard of the risk is more wilful and, therefore, more reprehensible on the board's part.
      It is difficult for a non-lawyer such as I to reach a definite view on the prejudice issue. It may seem far-fetched, as it does to my right hon. Friend. But—and this is now the crucial point in this case—I have not the slightest inkling, and nor has the board, of what defence any of those accused in connection with the Brighton explosion will raise.
      I have personal views, as does my right hon. Friend, on how likely it is that the jury will be persuaded that the explosion resulted from, say, a fractured gas main rather than an explosive device. Less easy to judge—my right hon. Friend raised the question whether a criminal attack was involved—is whether the jury is likely to be influenced at all by a decision reached before the trial by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board and whether it could with any force be claimed by defence counsel that they may have been influenced.
      I am sure that my right hon. Friend would wish to join me in hoping for a fair trial and a trial that proceeds without diversion from the issues that will properly be before the jury. The chairman of the board, applying himself to the matter diligently, has reached the conclusion that the awards should not proceed while the trial is pending.
      The chairman of the board is not alone in this view. He has, in this case, sought the views of the Lord Chief Justice on whether there would be a risk of prejudice if the board were to proceed to make awards. The Lord Chief Justice has confirmed the view to Mr. Ogden, and separately to me, that a risk of prejudice does exist, both as a question
      1150
      of general principle as well as in the case that we are now considering. Of course, the view taken in the trial would be a matter for the judge concerned, and the arguments put forward, but it is clear that authoritative legal opinion is that the risk of prejudice cannot be dismissed.
      Indeed, in these circumstances, in view of the publicity which this matter has, naturally, received and the crucial importance of getting a proper trial in which any guilty person can actually be found guilty, I have been forced to conclude that it would be foolish to intervene, even if I had the right to do so.
      The trial will open in the next few weeks. I understand—and it is certainly my wish—that the board should be free to resolve the outstanding cases as soon as it is clear from the process of the trial that the fact that a criminal act took place is not in doubt. This means that it should not be necessary to wait for the result of the trial to be known before the board can proceed. So the remaining delay should not be great, although I accept that any delay on the scale that has occurred in these kind of cases can cause hardship.
      But we cannot leave the matter there.
      Mr. Jeremy Hanley: For a jury to be prejudiced it has to have heard of the amount of compensation given as a result of a particular act. Of the 30,000 compensation cases dealt with last year, I wonder how many were published in the newspapers and how many juries ever heard of compensatory amounts being paid.
      Mr. Hurd: That matter has rightly and honourably been raised by my right hon. Friend. It is not a matter which can be dealt with in a corner and nor has anyone sought that it should be. I have mentioned not only the views of Mr. Ogden but the views which support him in that respect of the Lord Chief Justice. I have also mentioned, which I think that the House would agree with, the crucial importance of getting a proper trial in which diversionary issues are not raised in any way which might prevent anyone who may be guilty from being found guilty. That thought has rather dominated my non-legal mind in tackling this matter.
      As I said, we cannot leave the mattter there. The general issue which emerges from these cases may recur and further thought must be given to it. It would be too easy to reach a conclusion based simply on the notion of playing safe without regard to the considerations of humanity, touching the lives of individuals which my right hon. Friend has clearly and properly expressed.
      My right hon. Friend mentioned that this is the first debate on the subject, and that is correct so far as the Government's intentions are concerned, as well as, perhaps, his own. I have announced in the White Paper on criminal justice, recently published, that we intend to put the criminal injuries compensation scheme on to a statutory basis for the first time. So there will be, when we come after the next Gracious Speech to a Bill which will implement this and other proposals, an opportunity for Parliament and Government to consider the matter further. Parliament will, as part of its consideration of our proposals for putting the scheme on a statutory basis, need to tackle the relationship between the scheme, the Government and the courts. There will be occasion, and, I think, obligation, to think about the matter, among others.

      1151
      I have given the reasons why, quite apart from the convention that Governments do not intervene in the administration of the board, for obvious reasons which my right hon. Friend accepted, in this case, with a trial of this importance pending, it is difficult for me to go against the considered view of the Lord Chief Justice. But this is not a matter which will go to sleep and there will soon be opportunities as part of the general consideration of the
      1152
      scheme for the House to return to it. The cases to which my right hon. Friend has referred will be a test of the view formed in particular of the relationship between the board and the courts. This debate may thus turn out to be an important prelude to future decisions and I am glad that it has taken place.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Adjourned accordingly at two minutes to One o'clock.

CIVIL SERVICE
  Secondment
  Secondment
WALES
  Bridge Construction (Loughor)
  Bridge Construction (Loughor)
  Business Improvement Services Scheme
  Business Improvement Services Scheme
  Welsh Office
  Welsh Office
  Education
  Education
  Badgers (Bovine Tuberculosis)
  Badgers (Bovine Tuberculosis)
  Youth Training Scheme
  Youth Training Scheme
  Local Authority Housing
  Local Authority Housing
  Wales Tourist Board
  Wales Tourist Board
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Philippines
  Philippines
  UNESCO
  UNESCO
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
  Social Security Commissioners
  Social Security Commissioners
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Copyright
  Copyright
  Pyramid Selling
  Pyramid Selling
  Aviation Fuel
  Aviation Fuel
  Bedford Commercial Vehicles
  Bedford Commercial Vehicles
  Departmental Official (Classified Information)
  Departmental Official (Classified Information)
  United States Trade Action (Chamois Leather)
  United States Trade Action (Chamois Leather)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Teachers
  Teachers
  Performance (National Standard)
  Performance (National Standard)
  School Buildings
  School Buildings
  Plant Breeding Institute
  Plant Breeding Institute
  General Certificate of Secondary Education
  General Certificate of Secondary Education
  Member's Correspondence
  Member's Correspondence
  Pupil Statistics
  Pupil Statistics
  School Standards
  School Standards
  Value for Money
  Value for Money
  Parental Influence
  Parental Influence
  Schools (Expenditure)
  Schools (Expenditure)
  Sunderland Polytechnic
  Sunderland Polytechnic
ENERGY
  South Killingholm (CEGB Land)
  South Killingholm (CEGB Land)
  Oil Prices
  Oil Prices
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Industrial Injuries Scheme
  Industrial Injuries Scheme
  Maternity Allowance
  Maternity Allowance
  Pregnancy Testing
  Pregnancy Testing
  Child Benefit
  Child Benefit
  Pharmaceutical Products
  Pharmaceutical Products
  National Health Service (Pay)
  National Health Service (Pay)
  Dental Services
  Dental Services
  Schoolchildren (Dietary Survey)
  Schoolchildren (Dietary Survey)
  Ambulance Services
  Ambulance Services
  Mental Patients (Supervision)
  Mental Patients (Supervision)
  AIDS
  AIDS
  Lincolnshire and South Humberside
  Lincolnshire and South Humberside
  Benefits
  Benefits
  School Meals
  School Meals
DEFENCE
  Ulster Defence Regiment
  Ulster Defence Regiment
  Berlin Brigade (Equipment)
  Berlin Brigade (Equipment)
  Chemical Weapons
  Chemical Weapons
  Mr. Clarence Robinson (Visit)
  Mr. Clarence Robinson (Visit)
PRIME MINISTER
  Strategic Defence Initiative
  Strategic Defence Initiative
  United Kingdom Companies (United States Laws)
  United Kingdom Companies (United States Laws)
  Opium Poppy (Seed Production)
  Opium Poppy (Seed Production)
  Ministerial Shareholdings (Guidelines)
  Ministerial Shareholdings (Guidelines)
  Energy Efficiency Projects
  Energy Efficiency Projects
  Public Bodies (Appointments)
  Public Bodies (Appointments)
  REVIEW BODIES
  REVIEW BODIES
  Workfare Schemes
  Workfare Schemes
  Departmental Classified Material (Security Commission)
  Departmental Classified Material (Security Commission)
  Engagements
  Engagements
SCOTLAND
  Monofilament Gill Nets
  Monofilament Gill Nets
  Local Authority Housing
  Local Authority Housing
  Fish Landings
  Fish Landings
  Youth Training Scheme
  Youth Training Scheme
  Public Bodies (Staff)
  Public Bodies (Staff)
  Single Payments
  Single Payments
  Sunday Trading
  Sunday Trading
  Housing (Capital Allocations)
  Housing (Capital Allocations)
  Crime Statistics
  Crime Statistics
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Brixton Prison
  Brixton Prison
  Prisons (Electronic Equipment)
  Prisons (Electronic Equipment)
  Illegal Gambling (Prosecutions)
  Illegal Gambling (Prosecutions)
  Metropolitan Police
  Metropolitan Police
  Alcohol Education Programmes
  Alcohol Education Programmes
  Prison Officers (Territorial Army)
  Prison Officers (Territorial Army)
  Woolwich Prison
  Woolwich Prison
  Thames Valley Police (Special Duties)
  Thames Valley Police (Special Duties)
  Opium Poppies
  Opium Poppies
  Animal Protection Groups (Police Liaison)
  Animal Protection Groups (Police Liaison)
  Shahid Syed
  Shahid Syed
  Public Bodies (Staff)
  Public Bodies (Staff)
  Immigrant Appeal Hearings
  Immigrant Appeal Hearings
  Marita Anderson and Ella O'Dwyer
  Marita Anderson and Ella O'Dwyer
  Prisoners (Statistics)
  Prisoners (Statistics)
  Young Persons (Custody)
  Young Persons (Custody)
  Metropolitan Police (Complaints)
  Metropolitan Police (Complaints)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Pigs
  Pigs
  Opium Poppies
  Opium Poppies
  EC (Intervention)
  EC (Intervention)
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Newtownbreda Sewage Treatment Works (Contract)
  Newtownbreda Sewage Treatment Works (Contract)
  Royal Ulster Constabulary
  Royal Ulster Constabulary
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Mr. Len Forsyth
  Mr. Len Forsyth
  Holidaymakers (Cyprus)
  Holidaymakers (Cyprus)
THE ARTS
  Opera (Private Sponsorship)
  Opera (Private Sponsorship)
  British Library
  British Library
  National Heritage Act 1980
  National Heritage Act 1980
  Acceptances in Lieu of Tax
  Acceptances in Lieu of Tax
ENVIRONMENT
  Teviot Housing Estate, Tower Hamlets
  Teviot Housing Estate, Tower Hamlets
  Rates
  Rates
  Radioactive Discharges
  Radioactive Discharges
  Local Authority Mortgages (Defaults)
  Local Authority Mortgages (Defaults)
  Council House Sales
  Council House Sales
  London Marathon
  London Marathon
  Local Authorities (Employment of Members)
  Local Authorities (Employment of Members)
  Hampton Court (Fire)
  Hampton Court (Fire)
  Local Government Reform
  Local Government Reform
  Shire Counties (Single Tier Authorities)
  Shire Counties (Single Tier Authorities)
  Tobacco (Sports Sponsorship)
  Tobacco (Sports Sponsorship)
  Tobacco Advisory Council
  Tobacco Advisory Council
  Acid Rain
  Acid Rain
  Local Authorities (Grant-Related Expenditure)
  Local Authorities (Grant-Related Expenditure)
  Slum Clearance Subsidy
  Slum Clearance Subsidy
  Housing Expenditure
  Housing Expenditure
  Nature Conservancy Council and Development Commission
  Nature Conservancy Council and Development Commission
  London Residuary Body
  London Residuary Body
  County Hall, London
  County Hall, London
  BBC (Sports Events)
  BBC (Sports Events)
  Denis-Wild Type Houses
  Denis-Wild Type Houses
  Residuary Bodies (Appointments)
  Residuary Bodies (Appointments)
TRANSPORT
  Vehicles (Anti-spray Devices)
  Vehicles (Anti-spray Devices)
  Aviation Fuel
  Aviation Fuel
  Road Casualty Figures
  Road Casualty Figures
  Dumping at Sea
  Dumping at Sea
  General Lighthouse Authorities
  General Lighthouse Authorities
  Gipsies
  Gipsies
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Unemployed Persons (South-East)
  Unemployed Persons (South-East)
  Privatisation
  Privatisation
  Manufacturing Industry (Taxation)
  Manufacturing Industry (Taxation)
  Interest Rates
  Interest Rates
  Public Sector Borrowing Requirement
  Public Sector Borrowing Requirement
  Petrol (Duty)
  Petrol (Duty)
  Gross Domestic Product
  Gross Domestic Product
  Commercial Contracts
  Commercial Contracts
  Freeports
  Freeports
  Alcohol (Excise Duty)
  Alcohol (Excise Duty)
  Inflation
  Inflation
  Personal Equity Plan
  Personal Equity Plan
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  Charities
  Charities
  European Monetary System
  European Monetary System
  Public Expenditure
  Public Expenditure
  World Debt
  World Debt
  Prices and Incomes Policy
  Prices and Incomes Policy
  Public Sector Borrowing
  Public Sector Borrowing
  Personal Taxation (Reform)
  Personal Taxation (Reform)
  Capital Expenditure
  Capital Expenditure
  Housing (Personal Investment)
  Housing (Personal Investment)
  Job Creation
  Job Creation
  Personal Taxation
  Personal Taxation
  Taxation
  Taxation
  Economic Prospects
  Economic Prospects
  Unemployment Costs
  Unemployment Costs
  Export Licences
  Export Licences
  Systime plc, Leeds
  Systime plc, Leeds
  Water Authorities (Privatisation)
  Water Authorities (Privatisation)
  Depositary Receipts (Taxation)
  Depositary Receipts (Taxation)
  Excise Duty
  Excise Duty
  United States Extraterritorial Controls
  United States Extraterritorial Controls
  Civil List
  Civil List
  Building Societies (Ombudsman Scheme)
  Building Societies (Ombudsman Scheme)
  Eastern Bloc Fish Processing Ships
  Eastern Bloc Fish Processing Ships
EMPLOYMENT
  Statistics
  Statistics
  Perivale Skillcentre
  Perivale Skillcentre
  Community Programme
  Community Programme
  Jobstart Scheme
  Jobstart Scheme
  Enterprise Allowance Scheme
  Enterprise Allowance Scheme
  YTS
  YTS
  Wages Inspectors
  Wages Inspectors
  Industrial Diseases and Accidents
  Industrial Diseases and Accidents
  Coventry (Redundancies)
  Coventry (Redundancies)
  Tourism
  Tourism
  Licensing Laws
  Licensing Laws
  Closed Shop
  Closed Shop
Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Ely): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

European Airlines: Competition
Baroness Burton of Coventry: 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, further to their Answer on 23rd January (cols. 327–8) concerning the European Commission and European airlines, they will make a statement on the decisions reached and recommendations made at the meeting of the Council of Transport Ministers held on 17th March.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, at the Transport Council on 14th March my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport stressed that there must be real liberalisation of fares, capacity and market access, before airline agreements can be considered for exemptions from the competition rules. The council instructed officials to continue work urgently on an overall package covering all these elements.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, having paid tribute on many occasions to what the Government are trying to do in all this, may I ask whether the Minister is able to elaborate at all on what he told us on 23rd January as to the progress the Commission had made in what the Minister described to us as the "detailed preparation of possible court cases against member states"? Does the Minister recall that he himself said that such cases might be useful if the council continued to block progress? Could he comment on that?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we should like to reach agreement within the council and by voluntary means. As the House will know, because I have said it before, at the moment we have the Dutch presidency, to be followed by our own, and if we do not make significant progress by the end of the year we shall probably have to resort to other means to get liberalisation of the air market.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, in view of the fact that Mr. Spicer said last week that it was outrageous that competition in aviation matters in Europe was still so severely restricted, and in view of the opposition that our country is meeting in our European colleagues, could the Minister say whether we have been able to do anything additionally by way of bilateral agreements to hurry these matters up?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we are making a little progress in creating a more realistic attitude among our friends in Europe. But notwithstanding the progress that we are trying to make in Brussels we have recently secured Italian agreement to the introduction of a new service to Milan by British Caledonian, and I am pleased to be able to tell the House that we have recently secured Spanish approval for 14 new routes, mostly from regional airports in the United Kingdom.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, one hates to be repetitive on this matter, but if I do not ask the question the noble Earl will think that I have forgotten all about it. In the list of matters which he said the Secretary of State raised at this meeting he did not refer to the question of keeping essential co-ordination—and I am delighted with his last answer on the use of regional airports. Was that matter also raised in the consultations?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I think a repetitive question deserves a repetitive reply. Government policy remains consistent with what I said before.
Lord Northfield: My Lords, was the Minister saying obliquely in his answer that if no progress is made in the coming months the British Government are prepared to take this matter to the European Court?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, that indeed is one option.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, is it not more than an option? Am I not correct in remembering that we have always been told that as the British Government would be in the chair for the last six months of this year, they would quite definitely deal with this matter if the council were not able to deal with it beforehand?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, indeed we shall do our best to secure agreement when we are president of the council. If we fail in our attempts we shall try by every other means possible to liberalise the air market, of which one means is certainly going to the European Court.

Mr Alan Bristow: Alleged Knighthood Offer
3.5 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: 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, in view of subsequent developments, they will reconsider their refusal of 10th February (H.L. Debates, cols. 5–6) to inquire into the allegations of Mr. Alan Bristow that he was offered a knighthood in return for certain commercial actions.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone): My Lords, as my right honourable and learned friend the Attorney-General stated on 8th April in another place, an investigation into these allegations has been initiated.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for that Answer. Is he aware of the fact that his noble friend the Leader of the House on 10th February (at col. 6 of Hansard), in answering a question from my noble friend Lord Stallard, described this alleged offer of an honour to Mr. Bristow as "gossip and tittle-tattle"? How long has it been the custom of the law department of this Government to refer gossip and tittle-tattle to the police? Will the noble and learned Lord note that my Question has nothing to do with any case, or any police action, but is based upon the necessity of an inquiry by this House into the allegations that were made?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am not in any way dissenting from what my noble friend the Leader of the House said on 10th February. However, I think that the noble Lord has momentarily forgotten the provisions of the Honours (Prevention of Abuses) Act 1925, which was passed through Parliament, I believe, when my father was Attorney-General. Section 1 of that Act reads as follows:
"If any person accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain from any person, for himself or for any other purpose, any gift, money or valuable consideration as an inducement or reward for procuring or assisting or endeavouring to procure the grant of a dignity or title of honour to any person, or otherwise in connection with such a grant, he shall be guilty of a misdemeanour."
The Attorney-General's investigation is very different from that which was put in a Question to my noble friend.
Lord Cottesloe: My Lords, if Mr. Bristow has in fact been offered a knighthood he will have had a letter from the Prime Minister asking whether he was willing to accept one. Does he suggest that he has such a letter?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am sorry, I did not hear the question.
Lord Cottesloe: My Lords, the question was whether Mr. Bristow suggests that he had in his possession a letter from the Prime Minister asking whether he was willing to accept a knighthood. If he had been offered one, he would certainly have such a letter.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I do not know the answer. It seems to me to be highly unlikely. When I was chairman of the Conservative Party there was a man going about London saying that if anyone was prepared to pay me £10,000 I would get him a knighthood. He asked two people to my knowledge. One laughed him out of court, and the other was so shocked that he told Mr. Gaitskell.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, perhaps I may take the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor back to the original Question that was asked by my noble friend. Since I raised the Question on 10th February, when I asked for an internal inquiry to take place into the allegations, I was hoping that we would get some reply today which would tell us what has changed between then and now to convince the Director of Public Prosecutions, no less, that it ought now to be investigated. What has changed from the tittle-tattle position to it now being a serious issue which ought to be investigated by the DPP?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I suppose that even tittle-tattle can result in a misdemeanour at law.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, is my noble and learned friend aware of the theory that there has been a gross misunderstanding and that the offer made by the two mysterious Peers was not of a knighthood but of a night out, and that it was a matter of seats for the opera or for "Cats"?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I do not think that would come within the terms of the Honours (Prevention of Abuses) Act 1925.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, if every stupid suggestion of a possible honour or anything else had to be referred to a member of the judiciary, can the noble and learned Lord suggest just how many judges we would have to have in this country?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am sure that I should have to water the brandy a bit!
Lord Wilson of Langside: My Lords, with regard to the other allegations reported as having been made by Mr. Bristow, unrelated to the knighthood question, was any consideration given to whether these allegations, if true, involved a contravention of the Prevention of Corruption Acts of 1906 and 1916?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I do not think I can answer that question; but I thought that the Question originally asked in February, and probably that which was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, referred to the potential use of honours as an inducement. If the noble and learned Lord wants a definitive answer to the question he has just asked, I am afraid that I cannot give it to him now.

Housing Corporation: Special Funding
3.13 p.m.
Lord Mellish: 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 allot special funds to the Housing Corporation to be given to housing associations to build housing for rent in London docklands.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the three docklands boroughs—Newham, Southwark, and Tower Hamlets—are among the 80 housing stress areas in which the Housing Corporation are concentrating new fair rent approvals for their 1986–87 programme. In 1985–86 the Housing Corporation approved new fair rent and low cost home ownership schemes with a value of over £13½ million in the docklands area of these boroughs. We have no proposals at present to allocate further special funds to the Housing Corporation for new fair rent schemes in docklands.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, is the Minister aware that under the Act of Parliament which set up the corporation it is not allowed to build houses except

755
those for sale? It has always been the desire of the corporation that there should be housing for rent for that vast element of the population which cannot afford to buy a house but wishes to rent. I have some experience, but as I understand it the only people interested in building houses are the housing associations, which are very reputable. There are at least ten sites available to be built on at this time, but unfortunately, we are told, the Housing Corporation does not have the funds to give to them. What else can I do but put down a Question to ask the Minister?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am not sure that this is quite correct. The total population of the eight square miles of the London Dockland Development Corporation's area is 40,000. Approximately 75 per cent. of those 40,000 people live in council accommodation, 15 per cent. are owner-occupiers and the remaining 10 per cent. have other forms of tenure. On the fair rent approvals in the £13½ million that I have mentioned, this amounts to £8.2 million. Money is also given by the individual boroughs, and they are also building houses themselves.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, with great respect to the Minister he does not seem to understand the question. It is not a question of where people are living now. The fact is that we are unable to build housing for rent, and there is a demand for that. I am simply saying to the Minister that the only way that money can be obtained is through the Housing Corporation, which has nothing to do with us. I do wish the Minister would not be naive, because the local councils, such as Southwark, could build houses tomorrow on land made available, but because of their political prejudice against us refuse to do so. If the Minister does not know that story it is about time he did. Therefore, all I know is that a lot of people—
Noble Lords: Question!
Lord Mellish: I am therefore asking the Minister whether he will help the housing associations to overcome this very serious problem, my Lords.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I have to say, as I did in my original Answer, that £13½ million was given by the Housing Corporation to housing associations in docklands for the sort of schemes that the noble Lord suggests. I fully understand, and he has been at pains to point out, the political situation in Southwark, but it is interesting to note that the comparison for extra housing association money in the three London boroughs concerned has risen from £2.2 million in 1984–85 to £4.9 million in 1985–86.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, while not demurring for one moment from the request made by my noble friend Lord Mellish for additional funding for housing in London docklands, which would be a good investment, is the Minister not aware—he must be aware—that some of the areas of highest housing deprivation in the country are in the big cities other than London? Is it not a fact that cities such as Manchester, which submitted proposals for a £90 million spending plus in the current year, received only one-third of the allocation it applied for? I
756
understand that a similar situation applied in other cities, such as Leeds, Sheffield and Liverpool, and in other London boroughs not concentrated round the dockland area. Will the Minister give an undertaking that if any additional funds are to be made available for public sector housing these areas of high priority will receive the utmost consideration?
Lord Skelmersdale: Yes, my Lords, I can willingly give that undertaking. This is why the Government have asked the Housing Corporation to identify and to concentrate resources on the areas of particularly high need, including Manchester, parts of Bristol and elsewhere in the country. It has produced a list of 80 stress areas, which I have mentioned. It is right that within the resources available the areas to concentrate on should be those where the needs are greatest.
Baroness David: My Lords, is it not a fact that Sir Hugh Cubitt, the director of the Housing Corporation, in a report in July, complained that programmes for housing for the most direly in need were desperately under-funded; and surely it is up to the Government to produce more funds for the Housing Corporation when it has been made quite clear in a great many reports how disastrous the housing situation is?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, it is true that the Housing Corporation's preferred option in its first corporate plan was to double the current programme, but it is right to point out that this would cost £1,150 million a year, and, as I said in my Answer to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, on 4th March last, this has to be done within our general and very successful economic policies.

Heating Allowances and Comparative Expenditure
3.19 p.m.
Lord Stallard: 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 how much was spent by the DHSS on assistance with fuel bills in 1985; the number of houses they estimate could be brought up to the current thermal standards by an equivalent expenditure; what savings would result from such expenditure and whether there is adequate co-ordination between departments to ensure cost-effective public expenditure in this area.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the cost of supplementary benefit weekly heating additions was approximately £400 million in 1984–85. This includes expenditure on age and health-related heating additions which could not reasonably be redirected to a combination of thermal insulation measures.
The cost of relevant thermal insulation measures varies widely according to the size, type and state of repair of the dwelling, but for a medium size home in good repair it could cost between £500 and £3,000. Such a programme would be unlikely to bring significant public expenditure saving. I am satisfied that there is adequate co-ordination between the

757
various departments concerned with home insulation measures.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that reply. She will accept that my arithmetic is not as good as it used to be. I am not able to work out immediately how many homes at £500 each that enormous figure of £400 million could insulate, but it is quite a tidy number. That seems to confirm my view and that of many others that we are spending far too little on conservation and insulation and wasting scarce resources in the way that we did last winter and the winter before.
Does the noble Baroness agree that what we need is a co-ordinated approach among the three departments, the Department of the Environment, the Department of Health and Social Security and the Department of Energy, to get the most cost-effective programme of conservation and insulation, as well as financial assistance for those in need; and that we ought to start that planned and co-ordinated programme now and not wait until the middle of next winter?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord. Indeed, in Energy Efficiency Year this is something that the Government are concentrating upon. We have started an energy efficiency campaign which has been promoted on television. Leaflets have been distributed, and they provide advice for all households on how to improve the energy efficiency of their homes. In addition, government funded voluntary sector insulation projects are expected to double in number from 200 to 400 during 1986.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, after the recent cold spell in February, can the noble Baroness tell the House whether the Government are to review their arrangements for special emergency payments in such situations? I have read the guidelines. They are extremely confusing and give rise to random results. Will the Government take that to heart and look at their guidelines?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, during that period the Government looked, and certainly in future crises of this sort will look, at every way possible to make the system more efficient.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness what role the voluntary organisations can and do play in helping to co-ordinate the Government's policy over these matters?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the voluntary sector insulation projects which I mentioned earlier are a good example of different government departments working together to improve the thermal efficiency of low income households. There is the Community Programme and the Manpower Services Commission funded programme in regard to financing the labour; start-up costs are financed by the Energy Efficiency Office, while materials are financed by the DHSS for draught-proofing and the Department of the Environment for loft insulation. I believe that this is a good example of co-operation among government departments supported by the voluntary sector.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that many general practitioners have been gravely concerned about the risk of hypothermia for elderly people during the recent unexpectedly cold spell, particularly bearing in mind high fuel costs and the tendency of elderly people to turn down their heating appliances to dangerous levels? May I ask the noble Baroness whether she is aware of the new scheme pioneered by the Electricity Council, whereby a single room is insulated and heated? This is being explored and pioneered as a pilot scheme in certain electricity board areas and many of us would like to see that scheme extended to other areas.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, while I think that this point is slightly outside the terms of the original Question, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for drawing the attention of the House to the scheme, which I feel will be more generally supported in future.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that if she were to give serious consideration to the suggestion of my noble friend it offers the possibility of employing on insulation schemes many tens of thousands of unemployed people? That is relevant after the publication of the worst figures for four and a half years which were made available yesterday. Will she reconsider this, particularly bearing in mind that for every person put hack into employment the Government would save about £6,000 a year on unemployment benefit?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am not sure that I completely understood the relevance of the noble Lord's supplementary question, but voluntary sector insulation projects which are being supported by Government funding, and, in particular, the wages of labour under the Manpower Services Commission scheme, are helping, in addition, with the unemployment problem.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, can the noble Baroness tell us whether what she was saying about cost-effectiveness of public expenditure means that there has to be a net saving from this expenditure, despite the fact that it could bring enormous benefits in regard to hypothermia, the subject which the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, raised?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, current building regulations are set by the Department of the Environment and they specify a thermal standard for lofts and walls, as well as a limitation on the area of external windows. While it is relatively easy to bring dwellings with loft spaces up to this standard, it is more difficult to bring walls, especially solid walls, and windows up to the standard set for new houses. This is why I spoke of thermal insulation measures in a package, as it were, to give an indication of what might be achieved on an average property.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, the noble Baroness mentioned the single payments which were used to cover the cost of materials used by voluntary organisations, such as Neighbourhood Energy Action. Will she confirm that those single payments, or a substitute for them, will continue? Otherwise, the

759
voluntary organisations will find it difficult to pay for those materials.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, yes. We appreciate the value of draught proofing and the work done in this way by the local voluntary projects. I think I can do best by quoting comments made by my honourable friend the Minister of State during a television programme recently. He said:
"I would not be prepared to see the loss of these single payments without being satisfied that we had devised alternative arrangements to make sure that these schemes could go on".

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lady Young will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on British interests in the Lebanon and terrorism. It may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the Committee stage of the Education Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7 p.m. for approximately one hour and that the Section Reading of the Protection of Military Remains Bill will be taken during this adjournment.

Education Bill [H.L.]
3.25 p.m.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Swinton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
Clause 18 [Aided and special agreement schools]:
The Lord Bishop of Ely The Lord Bishop of Ely moved Amendment No. 51ZA:
Page 21, line 21, at end insert—
("for all powers and functions not allocated to the local education authority, the governing body or the head teacher by this Act or any other enactment to be a power and a function respectively to be discharged by the governing body and").
The right reverend Prelate said The right reverend Prelate said: I move this amendment in the unavoidable absence of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London, chairman of the General Synod Board of Education, and later today I shall move other amendments that have been tabled already in his name. The right reverend Prelate has asked that I should first express his appreciation of his recent meeting with the Bishop of Menevia and the Secretary of State, to which, as a meeting which was then shortly to happen, the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, alluded in the first day of this Committee, when the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London withdrew an amendment to Clause 1 in view of that forthcoming meeting.
The present amendment touches the prerogatives of governing bodies of aided and special agreement schools. The Committee will recall that on the second
760
day of the Committee the noble Baroness the Minister resisted an amendment to Clause 16, as drafted, in part because it involved in the Government's view an inappropriate reduction in the independence of aided school governors, so disturbing, "the division of powers on which the dual system of education has been based since 1944". This was a point that was readily taken as requiring amendment of the drafting of the amendment.
The words of this present amendment are close to the amendment to Clause 1 which was proposed by the right reverend Prelate on the first day of the Committee stage, and by leave withdrawn. I move this amendment in the hope that it might offer an opportunity for clarification of this point. The impression gained by colleagues during the discussion at official level, to which I have referred, is that where the word "conduct" is used in this Bill—for instance, at the beginning of Clause 15, when it is said that articles of government shall provide for the conduct of the school to be under the direction of the governing body of an aided school—that word "conduct" embraces more than ethos, spirit, attitudes, as in the Notes of Clauses, and is meant to refer to powers and functions.
I feel sure that this is consonant with what the noble Baroness the Minister observed about the independence of governing bodies of aided schools as in the 1944 Education Act. I was grateful at the time for her observations. I am moving this amendment as so important a principle is involved, and in the hope that if assurance were given on that interpretation of the word "conduct" it would not be necessary to press this amendment or indeed to seek such clarification by a later amendment at Report stage. I beg to move.
The Earl of Swinton: I was rather surprised to see this amendment. The Committee will recognise it as being almost identical to Amendment No. 2 which was tabled by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London in the light of a meeting which had been arranged between my right honourable friend and the right reverend Prelate on 10th April. This issue, raised by the previous amendment and repeated in this one, was fully discussed at that meeting, when it was understood that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London accepted that his withdrawn amendment was not entirely appropriate.
Perhaps I can rehearse again the Government's point of view. The amendment proposed purports to deal with those matters not covered by the primary legislation. I suggest that it does have serious weaknesses. There is already a substantial prescription on the allocation of functions, particularly as regards controlled schools, in existing legislation and this will be extended by the present Bill. The Government believe that the allocation of functions not covered by the primary legislation should be made according to what is appropriate to the particular case.
This Bill has been carefully drafted to ensure that these options are appropriately open. Of course, we recognise that one of the Churches' concerns is to ensure that the LEAs cannot take to themselves unspecified and unassigned functions through a blanket provision in articles of government. Where voluntary schools are concerned, the governing body

761
could object to that and, if agreement was not reached with the LEA, could refer the question to the Secretary of State. While each individual case must be considered on its merits, if the facts were as bald as those in the example that I have just cited, I think I can safely assure your Lordships that the Secretary of State would agree with the governing body. Indeed, for all schools the Government believe that the provisions of Clause 15(1) would rule out such a blanket provision for local education authorities.
I understand that at the meeting to which the right reverend Prelate has referred my right honourable friend agreed that the Government would look again at this clause and see whether it could be further clarified. I believe that arrangements have already been made for officials to discuss the question, and if necessary my right honourable friend stands ready to have a further meeting with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London and the Bishop of Menevia. I would therefore ask the right reverend Prelate whether he would be good enough to withdraw his amendment, letting the action that I have described complete its coarse and allowing the Government to honour their undertakings to reflect the expected agreement in this matter by an appropriate amendment at a later stage in the Bill.
Baroness Phillips: Before the right reverend Prelate withdraws the amendment, I am not quite certain that he would agree that the noble Earl has given him a complete answer. If this is going to happen, or indeed if this is already possible within the Bill, I am not quite clear why the amendment would not add to an existing situation. In other words, if the Government have nothing to fear from the amendment, surely they could gracefully accept it and then come back with one of their own at the next stage of the Bill. Meetings between individuals at any stage of a Bill are really no answer to your Lordships when dealing with the Committee stage of the Bill. I do not know what the right reverend Prelate feels about this; but, as chairman of the governors of an aided school, I am very concerned that there should be no interference at all with their existing control and powers. This we must watch very carefully throughout the passage of the Bill.
The Earl of Swinton: If I may answer the noble Baroness, I think there is absolutely nothing between us on this matter. The point I was trying to make was in connection with Amendment No. 2, which we discussed, where the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London was very happy that this should be the subject of a meeting, and the Government undertook to come back with appropriate amendments later on. There are a number of amendments which will be proposed by the right reverend Prelate later, and I think that there is really nothing between the Government and the Church on any of the amendments. We have given an undertaking to do it that way and I believe that a change at this stage would be counter-productive.
The Lord Bishop of Ely: With the assurances given by the noble Earl, which I am very grateful to receive,
762
following upon the meeting which I reported, I am very ready to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 51A, 51B and 51C not moved.]
The Lord Bishop of Ely The Lord Bishop of Ely moved Amendment No. 52:
Page 21, line 31, leve out ("determine and ").
The right reverend Prelate said: I beg to move the amendment standing in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London. During the Second Reading, I think the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester referred to the Bill as not in all terms achieving the clarification which was the desire of the Bill. The particular clause in question here states that the governors will have control of the curriculum: yet a few lines later it says that the head teacher will determine it. I think there is a problem here of definition certainly, and perhaps one of substance, on how a particular body can control something if somebody else is able to determine it. I move this amendment without in any way intending to be negative, but solely to achieve the further clarification the Bill sets out to achieve. I beg to move.
The Earl of Swinton: The very special role of the governing body of an aided or special agreement school is one which the Government fully recognise. That is why they have taken the opportunity afforded by this Bill to extend control of the curriculum, already vested in the governing bodies of aided secondary schools by the 1944 Act, to the governing bodies of all aided and special agreement schools. I know that this is something which has been widely welcomed by the Churches and those involved in voluntary education.
I am sure that the Committee will also agree that arrangements for the detailed organisation and delivery of the curriculum must in practice be left to the professional discretion of the headteacher—who will of course, in aided and special agreement schools, have been chosen and appointed by the governing body itself. The head's role must go further than would be covered by the term "organisation" alone, as the governors will not have defined the curriculum in detail for every class and every course in the school—that is the activity which will be carried out under the head's power to "determine" the curriculum. But the control of the curriculum will clearly rest with the governing body and in any dispute over the content of that curriculum the governors would be able to exercise that overriding control to ensure that their wishes were met.
Perhaps I may take this opportunity to answer the right reverend Prelate who asked me when moving the last amendment, to confirm that "conduct" has a wide meaning to include all functions and powers to do with the running of a school. I would most gladly confirm that. I hope that having heard the explanation, the right reverend Prelate will feel able to withdraw this amendment.
The Lord Bishop of Ely: I am most grateful to the noble Earl the Minister for his clarification of where control lies and of conduct. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 52A not moved.]
Clause 18 agreed to.
Lord Harris of Greenwich Lord Harris of Greenwich moved Amendment No. 53:
After Clause 18, insert the following new clause—
("Crime prevention and road safety.
. The articles of government for every school shall provide that courses on crime prevention and road safety are provided by any constable appointed for the purpose by a chief officer of police.")
The noble Lord said: The question I want to raise this afternoon concerns the relationship between the education system and the police service. At the moment I do not propose to press the amendment today, almost irrespective of what the Minister may say. I want to know, and I suspect that a number of other noble Lords will want to know, what the Minister proposes to say about the general range of issues raised in the amendment.
In the overwhelming majority of local education areas there is no problem. There is a cordial relationship between schools and the police service. That cordial relationship exists in virtually every shire county and in many cities as well. Sometimes a local beat officer may call regularly at a local school to talk to primary and secondary school children about the general problems of crime prevention and road safety, the two issues which are mentioned in the amendment. Sometimes the chief constable may decide to have a specialist constable who is trained to talk to school children make the visit rather than the local beat officer.
I shall give a brief illustration of the way in which the problem is approached in some areas of the country. I shall quote briefly from an article by Superintendent Terry Anley who is head of the community liasion department of the Thames Valley Police. He pointed out in the article that as part of a progamme to achieve better relations between schools and the local police a local headmaster was seconded to the Thames Valley Police for a year. They jointly evaluated the then police involvement in the schools.
In the article the superintendent said:
"What we have developed is a ten year plan of action to cover each school year from 5 to 16 years, in the form of a manual which is taken into schools by our officers and discussed with the head teacher and the class teachers".
Later he said:
"What then are our objectives to be? Programmes should be designed to teach crime prevention in its broadest sense—to teach personal safety and citizenship and to teach the recognition of responsibilities".
He continued:
"There has been, this year in Thames Valley, an upsurge of interest in crime prevention youth panels in schools, run by the students (with help from the staff on occasions) and by the local police and crime prevention officers themselves. This involves real consensus decision making on behaviour and attitudes".
So much for the view of one experienced police superintendent who is working in this important area in the Thames Valley force. However, unhappily in a number of areas in this country that does not exist. In a number of parts of inner London, Left-wing teachers are preventing the police from entering the schools at all for purposes of a kind which I have just set out. There cannot be much dispute about that.
In a parliamentary Answer given on 30th January this year (House of Commons Hansard col. 571), the Minister of State gave a list of schools in inner London—I cite this as an important example, and there are others, I understand—where there is a policy of refusing to admit the police. For the purpose of the record I propose to name the schools. They are: North Westminster Community School, NW1 and W9 (Lower Houses) and W2 (Upper Houses); Daubeney Infants School, E5; De Beauvoir Junior School, N1; De Beauvior Infants School, N1; Gainsborough Junior Mixed and Infants School, E9; Gayhurst Junior School, E8; Gayhurst Infants School, E8; Grazebrook Junior Mixed and Infants School, N16; Laburnum Junior Mixed and Infants School, E2; Millfields Junior School, E5; Millfields Infants School, E5; Orchard Junior Mixed and Infants School, E9; Southwold Junior Mixed and Infants School, E5; William Patten Junior School, N16; William Patten Infants School, N16; Clapton School, E5; Hackney Downs School, E5; Stoke Newington School, N16; Skinners' Company School, N16 and E5 (Upper and Lower School); Hurlingham and Chelsea School, SW6; Ecclesbourne Junior Mixed and Infants School, N1; William Tyndale Junior Mixed and Infants School, N1.
3.45 p.m.
Teachers prevent the police from entering each of those schools to discuss road safety and crime prevention. As we know from letters appearing in the press in East London, that is done in defiance of parents' wishes. Given that the Bill is about giving parents greater power and influence in schools, I should like to know what the Government propose to do about that situation.
The problem in London has arisen as a result of the decision by the Hackney Teachers' Association, which took the lead and was followed by the Inner London Teachers' Association. A number of us this afternoon would like to hear not merely an indication of the Government's concern about that, but what precisely they propose to do.
I shall briefly run over the issues that many parents want the police to raise in those schools. In many cases they are in areas of acute economic deprivation and high unemployment, with a high incidence of drug taking, as we know. First, they want the police to talk about the risk of narcotic abuse in London which, as we know, is growing at an alarming rate. Year on year, the level of heroin and cocaine consumption, particularly heroin, by children, is increasing at an alarming rate, and yet in such areas the police are being prevented from going into those schools by teachers operating entirely on the basis of their own ideological obsessions.
Secondly, there is road safety. That is self-evidently a desirable issue to be raised by the police. Thirdly, another matter of great importance to many parents is the risk of the sexual molestation of young children which is a problem of increasing severity in many areas of this country.
The Minister of State at the Department of Education and Science on 30th January 1986 (House of Commons Hansard col. 572) said about this issue:

765
"Young people need to know about the law and about the rights and responsibilities of citizens. They need to know, too, about the role of the police in maintaining law and order, about crime prevention and about road and other dangers. The action of certain schools in refusing to allow police in school is not in the interests of their pupils and can only hinder good relations between them and the police".
I agree with that and I am sure that virtually every other Member of your Lordships' Committee agrees with it as well. The purpose of this amendment is a simple one. What, in the context of what the Minister of State has said, do the Government now propose to do about the situation? I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Lord has said that he wig not press this amendment to a vote. Therefore, this is a matter on which only from this Dispatch Box can I express my views on the amendment. It is not necessary or appropriate to discuss whether the amendment may or may not be defective in its wording, but I think it is necessary, as the education spokesman for the Labour Party before this Committee, to say without equivocation that we do not condone the exclusion of the police from any schools, and that we do not believe it is proper, whatever political views teachers may hold, that they should use those political views for any exclusion of this sort.
Lord Mishcon: I rise again from these Benches, if I may, in order that there shall not be the slightest doubt about the views of the Opposition, and I speak as the official spokesman for the Official Opposition on home affairs. I think it highly regrettable—and I say this on behalf of these Benches—that any education establishment should bar the police from its school. I furthermore say that we have every conceivable interest in seeing that the relationships between our children and the police are of the friendliest and of the most helpful.
Baroness Cox: I will speak only very briefly indeed in support of this amendment because already, in speaking to a previous amendment, I have given some examples of the type of anti-police behaviour in the classrooms of some of our schools that causes such concern. As the noble Lord, Lord Harris, put it so well, one of the major purposes of this amendment is to try to ensure that the police are not banned from our schools. The noble Lord read a very sober list of those schools where a policy of banning the police is already in operation, and it is rather worrying that that list might be expected to grow, given that it is now the policy accepted by the Inner London Teachers' Association.
It is especially serious in view of the anti-police propaganda that is very freely available, especially in the London area. For example, at the so-called farewell party of the GLC on Easter Monday vast piles of those very virulently anti-police propaganda posters were available and were being given away free to people of all age groups. Of course, the police may be subject to legitimate criticism, but because of that kind of anti-police feeling that is being stirred up for political reasons outside schools it is very important that the police have access to our schools to answer that criticism, to be able *o talk to young people and themselves to put over the case for a police force, as
766
well as providing those educational services which they have provided for so long and so well, which are so greatly appreciated and which it is the purpose of this amendment to ensure they are allowed to continue to provide.
Viscount Trenchard: Before my noble friend answers on this probing amendment, may I say that I hope that on this occasion we shall not get another repeat of, "This is not the right way to cure the problem: legislation is not required". I think that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, has done the Committee a great service by listing the number of schools which the police are forbidden to enter. Perhaps it is a common sense deduction to suggest that in the schools where the police are forbidden quite a lot of other distorted practice and persuasion is going on, and quite a lot of the anti-police propaganda which my noble friend Lady Cox suggested is going on. This is a problem. All the problems that we have had in this section of the debate on the Education Bill are real problems, and they are growing. So I hope that we can have an end to the kind of statement which says either, "It is too difficult", or, "Legislation is not the right way to deal with it".
Baroness Hooper: We must all sympathise with the intention behind this amendment, which is that all pupils should receive instruction at school from the police in crime prevention and road safety. This would not only provide all pupils with valuable knowledge and skills but would actively promote good relations between the police and our young people. There can be few who will disagree with that, particularly in view of the very grave problems that are recognised in relation to narcotics abuse.
However, I must remind noble Lords that under existing legislation the only compulsory school subject, as has been stated already in discussion, is religious education. With that exception, responsibility for the school curriculum rests with local education authorities and individual schools, and successive Governments have resisted attempts to require schools to teach other specific subjects. So I am afraid that I must disappoint my noble friend Lord Trenchard by again saying that this is another area where legislation is not the appropriate course.
Another consequence of this clause, if it became law, would be to breach the right of the schools to determine who shall come into school for the purpose of giving instruction. This would be wrong in principle, and it could also have unfortunate practical consequences. This sort of activity is only useful if it takes place in a spirit of co-operation. It would not only be an unpleasant experience for a policeman or policewoman to go into a school to teach where there was little or no co-operation from the staff, but it could limit their effectiveness in the classroom. The existence of a statutory right of entry for this purpose would not necessarily help such co-operation to develop. It might, indeed, even hinder it.
The decision by 20 or so schools in the Inner London Education Authority not to invite the police into the classrooms has received considerable publicity, and the noble Lord, Lord Harris, quoted a list of schools. Incidentally, I understand that it may

767
not in all respects be accurate, and, if necessary and if it is helpful to the Committee, the Government will take steps to correct that. One can only deplore that decision of the schools. Nevertheless, we see the matter in perspective if we reflect that out of some 900 primary and secondary schools in the Inner London Education Authority about 880 admit the police to give instruction, and the noble Lord, Lord Harris, himself acknowledged that the situation generally throughout the country is reasonably satisfactory.
So what are the Government doing, and what do they intend to do? Within the next few weeks copies of a discussion document on developing effective cooperation between the police and the schools will be issued to every school in England and Wales and to every local education authority and police force. This has been prepared by the Society of Education Officers and the Association of Chief Police Officers, and should result in a better understanding between teachers and police officers. I think that this voluntary approach is the most promising way forward.
I have no doubt that the most effective way by which a school can help its pupils to develop into responsible citizens is by having the right atmosphere in which hard work and good quality work are expected, encouraged and rewarded; where good and considerate behaviour is the norm; and where the pupils can see that the staff are interested in them as individuals and care about them and their future. This will happen only as a result of hard and sustained work by the head teacher and all the staff.
We believe that the proposal in the Bill to give governing bodies responsibility for the conduct of their schools will enable them to exercise an important influence over the ethos of the school. However, in the light of what the noble Lord, and indeed other noble Lords, have said both in the previous debates and today, there is a further piece of action that the Government are prepared to take.
The circular that will be issued to local education authorities when the Bill becomes law will contain advice on the responsibility of schools for promoting good citizenship among pupils. The Government are ready to expand this advice in order specifically to encourage a smooth working relationship between schools and the police which will include contributions by the police on the matters which the noble Lord has in mind and to which he has referred. In view of what I have been able to say, I hope that the noble Lord will agree to withdraw his amendment.
4 p.m.
Lord Annan: It is not only the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, who may be disappointed by the reply of the noble Baroness. It has certainly disappointed me as one who put his name to the amendment with the noble Lord, Lord Harris.
Who are the grey, dim, dreary, depraved bureaucrats who have drafted this answer? I refer to the way in which it was drafted: the appeal to a general principle that no subject is to be made compulsory in our schools, which, I may say, is open to very grave criticism indeed when one considers that mathematics and the English language—the mother tongue—are
768
not compulsory subjects. But leaving that aside, to appeal to this general principle that no subject should be made compulsory except by the local authority is one of those marvellously convenient bureaucratic ways of dodging a real political issue.
One hundred and fifty years ago that marvellous inspector of schools, Matthew Arnold, would not have seen the point of such an amendment. In those days road safety—yes, one could be knocked over by a dray—was not the issue that it is today. As for crime prevention, we all know how that was in those days. The prevention of crime was carried out either by the family or by a police officer giving one or possibly more sharp clips over the ear to juvenile delinquents in order to prevent them appearing in the courts. Such measures are no longer possible today, and for very good reasons.
How are we to educate our children in the schools, children very often in disadvantaged circumstances, to understand the nature of crime, to understand that their health is at stake if they get on to the drug habit? How are we to make them understand that law and order is essential to any society if it is still possible for local options on this matter to be observed and the police to be excluded from schools?
I beg the noble Baroness to ask her right honourable friend the Secretary of State to reconsider. This is a matter on which there is no real disagreement in the Committee. We have heard the admirable speeches by the noble Lords, Lord Mishcon and Lord McIntosh of Haringey. They said from the Opposition Benches that there is no difference of opinion on the general issue. The question is: what is the best way of doing this? Without legislation one will get the same situation prevailing; indeed it may even spread. What will a circular do to those local schools which are determined to prevent the police coming in? They will tear it up and stamp on it. I beg the noble Baroness to take this to heart and ask her right honourable friend whether he will not alter his opinion.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I support the plea of the noble Lord, Lord Annan, and ask the noble Baroness to consider a little further her deeply disappointing reply. As I understood it, she said that legislation is the wrong instrument and that she will rely on a circular. Some of us may be sceptical as to whether the kind of people who impose this prohibition will be in the slightest degree affected by a circular or any number of circulars from the department.
Will the noble Baroness and her right honourable friend put this to the test? Will she give an undertaking to the Committee that if within a year of the issue of this circular the police are still excluded, the Government will come forward with the necessary legislation?
Baroness Hooper: I think the only undertaking I can give is to draw to the attention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State the comments that have been made in this Committee today. I can only say to noble Lords who have just spoken that, in my view, legislation does not necessarily guarantee good practice. The Government's attitude and reaction to this amendment, and indeed to others, results from the traditions and well established practices which in the

769
vast majority of cases work satisfactorily. The principle behind this Bill is to provide a structure by which these decisions can be made at a local level. We still feel that this is the best way to proceed.
Lord Annan: Will the noble Baroness bear with me again and just take on board this point? She used a good argument which is that custom is often the best way of dealing with problems. But in this situation the custom has broken down and is not accepted, and this is likely to spread. Therefore I do not accept that that is a good enough argument. That is why it is worth while putting in this clause even though it may appear to be anomalous.
We talk about the curriculum. I expressed to the noble Baroness my sadness that for many years the Government have resisted the attempt to make certain subjects compulsory. But they are academic subjects. This is something to do with social control. It is not a subject such as science or history. Therefore I ask the noble Baroness whether on those grounds she will think again. I understand the wisdom and experience of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, which is so much greater than mine, in the proposition that he put forward that if within a year we still find this resistance perhaps the Government will then introduce legislation. The trouble is that there is never parliamentary time. Here we have parliamentary time; a Bill is in Committee. Can we not grasp the nettle now?
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: What we are forgetting is that if this Bill is enacted with one or two improving amendments, we shall be dealing with a different situation. This is what we have to remember. It will be a different situation with different people there who will have a greater say. The Government are trying to say to us: "Look, we are trying systems that have been proved. We are going to improve the governing bodies of schools which will have a greater say in the administration and in the running of the schools, so let them have a go. Let them have a say. Let the people who really matter have a say". This is all that the Government are saying. Therefore I support what they are saying on this issue.
I am sure that the Government will take note. Let us remember that the majority of these schools are doing a good job, are co-operating and are working closely with all kinds of bodies outside of the school. Let us remember that the common sense of the new governors of schools will prevail.
Baroness Hooper: Yes, I must remind the Committee that family and parental responsibility are involved very much in this sphere. The object behind the Bill is to establish a structure by which parents have appropriate representation on governing bodies and the governing bodies have appropriate powers to control matters such as the one put forward in this amendment, with which everybody must have considerable sympathy.
Lord Gisborough: In view of the almost unanimous opinion in the Committee, I hope that the noble Baroness will take this back and reconsider it; or,
770
failing that, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, will test the opinion of the Committee.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I am grateful to all who have participated in this debate. This is an important and serious issue, and that has been recognised by noble Lords in all parts of the Committee. I can immediately answer one question put to me by the noble Lord who has just resumed his seat. I give him an absolute guarantee that this matter will come up again on Report, and frankly, if we do not get a better answer then, we shall vote.
It seems to me that the noble Baroness, who admittedly is in the difficult position of appearing before us as an advocate for the Department of Education and Science, has not been given a serious reply for this debate today. In a Bill that is designed to give greater power to parents, the rights of parents are being utterley ignored in the list of schools that I read out a few moments ago.
The idea, as the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, said only a moment or two ago, that the sort of people who are keeping the police out at the moment are to be deterred by a discussion document produced by the Society of Education Officers and ACPO or by a circular issued by the Department of Education and Science is, to put it as politely as possible, slightly to underestimate the vigour and the enthusiasm of this group of dedicated revolutionaries, which is what they are. They want to keep the police out; they will continue to keep the police out. A circular will frankly not make the slightest difference.
The Earl of Swinton: I have just seen the noble Lord, Lord Annan, heading out of the Chamber and I am sure—no, he is not going—he would wish to retract what he said about civil servants. In this Committee the three of us sitting here are a fair target for all that is thrown at us, but I am sure, as the noble Lord appreciates, the Civil Service cannot answer back. He used rather intemperate language about the officials, which is not perhaps in the best traditions of this House.
Lord Annan: I shall naturally apologise for anything I said which could have wounded the feelings of those who drafted the answer. I am sure that they drafted it in the spirit that they are used to; that this is a principle and it is a cannot-be-altered principle. I do not want to say anything personally about them except that I think there has been here a lack of imagination—shall we put it that way?—by those who were concerned with the drafting of the answer.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I had assumed that I had incurred the displeasure of the noble Earl when he rose. However, let me repeat the point that I was making and then I propose to sit down. We are asked to believe that a group of Trotsky-ist schoolmasters are to be prevented from barring the police as a result of two circulars. Quite bluntly, that is nonsense. Those who drafted the argument were talking nonsense.
Notwithstanding what the noble Lord, Lord Annan, said, I have the greatest admiration for members of the Civil Service but I very much hope that they are capable of finding slightly better arguments to justify

771
the case they put before Ministers. I repeat, if the noble Baroness and her colleagues are unable to come forward on Report and meet us, if necessary on the basis of what the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, suggested a few moments ago, a number of us are quite determined to divide the House on the question. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.15 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton Baroness Masham of Ilton moved Amendment No. 53A:
Insert the following new Clause—
("Health Education
. The articles of government for every school shall provide for the teaching of courses of health education, which shall include basic anatomy, first aid and nursing skills, sex education and child care, diet and hygiene, accident prevention and teaching on the dangers of drug, tobacco and alcohol abuse.").
The noble Baroness said: I feel that this amendment follows rather well after the last one, and I shall be equally annoyed if I get the same answer, which I expect I shall from the noble Baroness who is going to reply. This amendment which I bring before the Committee for your Lordships' consideration I feel is of the utmost importance for future generations if the health and wellbeing of our society is to improve. I think it was Sir Keith Joseph, when he was Secretary of State for Health and Social Security, who said: "There is a cycle of deprivation." Does the Committee not think that the time has come for us to get out of the rut and to do something about it? I believe educating our children to the vital needs of understanding the meaning of good health and to bringing them up to respect the marvels of their bodies will help to do something about many of the tragic situations which arise today. We have the situation of increasing child abuse and cruelty to children. We have increasing alcohol and drug abuse, and increased smoking among many young girls. Medically speaking, social class 5 have the highest perinatal mortality and morbidity rate. Most frightening of all is the increasing violence in society.
For some time now Australia has had life education centres. And now America—another country with a terrible drug problem—is making certain educational requirements on schools with respect to drugs, alcohol, caffeine, and tobacco.
The Government are trying hard to prevent drug abuse and have just launched a campaign with the BBC Grange Hill team with a song, "Just Say No to Drugs". I am certain that young people need far more education. Children need an awareness of the beauty and wonder of their body. It has been found since they launched the life education system in Australia that they are less and less likely to take any substance into their bodies that will hurt or destroy them. To respect themselves, and it is hoped others, they need to understand the physiology of the human body and what is good or harmful for it. I expect that I shall be told by some of your Lordships that it is not wise to spell out too much detail in legislation what needs to be done because some important issues which are not spelt out might be neglected.
The reason why I have listed several important subjects which I feel should be included is to make quite clear at this stage of the Bill what I think health education should mean. Some time ago I asked a Starred Question on health education and the officials from the Department of Education and Science dealing with the Question jumped to the conclusion that I had meant sex education. That happened to be the last thing on my mind at that time. Unless there are clear guidelines on what should be covered in a syllabus, I can understand how neglected some aspects of education could be.
We have in this country some excellent health education experts. I do not think that it would be too difficult for them to provide the necessary modules and manuals needed for health education, and health education teachers could become part of our educational system throughout the country.
I feel that basic first aid and nursing skills could be of immense value to children. Many of them are often left in charge of small babies, and younger children have to deal with sick or depressed parents. As a report on careers found, many children look after disabled parents before school and after they return from school. Perhaps those are matters that are not very often talked about, but they often exist.
The children of today are the future parents and trainers of the next generation. First aid can be vital when taking part in many outward bound and sporting activities, and some knowledge of accident prevention, such as understanding the dangers of diving into the shallow end of a swimming pool, can save a broken neck. A healthy diet can prevent such conditions as heart disease and cancer in the future: and with the increase in hepatitis B and the HTLV 3 virus, hygiene is more important than ever before.
Responsible sex education and good child care teaching is what every future parent needs. Unless good practices are taught now and in the future, the cycle of deprivation will just go round and round. As I am sure your Lordships will know, many children in our schools do not have good examples to follow from their own parents. Unless education does something about that, the problems can only get worse. The Government know better than anyone how expensive health care is becoming. Can we not educate a healthier nation for the future, to be more aware of how to look after themselves and their families? I hope that at this stage both your Lordships and the Government will accept the spirit of this amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Cox: I wish to speak very briefly but wholeheartedly in support of this amendment. It is particularly timely in view of the fact that the United Kingdom is a signatory to a statement of commitment to the attainment of health for all by the year 2000, which requires us as a nation to do all in our power, through preventive and primary health care, to promote good health and to prevent avoidable disease and injury.
In this country, as in other industrialised societies, we have seen a serious increase in deaths and disabilities from avoidable causes; for example, with the growth of diseases associated with behaviour such as smoking, unhealthy diet, and drug abuse. We are also

773
confronted by an increase in that dread disease AIDS—an increase that is to be of unknown proportions.
In some schools, however, it seems as though recent initiatives in curriculum development are almost designed to encourage such unhealthy forms of behaviour. For example, in a speech on Tuesday evening one noble Lord—I believe it was the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing—read extracts from a pupils' rights charter, which it was claimed had been circulated at Parliament Hill School. That charter informed pupils at what age they had a right to drink alcohol or a right to enter brothels.
I believe that the subjects spelt out in this amendment represent essential knowledge for a healthy life and that pupils have much more of a right to that kind of information than to some of the other forms of so-called education that seem to be offered to them at the present time at many of our schools. I warmly support the amendment.
Baroness Lane-Fox: I certainly support the amendment. I am sure that noble Lords will agree that for both humane and economic reasons it is essential that the greatest trouble be taken to maintain healthy bodies. Life can already play enough bad jokes in accidents, viruses and disease—the treatment of which proves enormously expensive to the NHS.
It would seem madness, surely, not to seize every possible opportunity to teach people how to avoid becoming just crocks, and to do so by telling them about the working of their joints and bodies, starting at an early age. The physiotherapist who saved my hands from being useless and my spine from being twisted is now shocked by the number of patients who come to her in their late middle age, having previously occupied costly NHS beds, because they have developed chronic orthopaedic conditions through their bad posture and bad use of limbs. In her life, that physiotherapist has run classes for children to teach them very elementary anatomy, physiology and psychology—showing them the proper use of, for instance, feet, knees, hips and backs, and letting them compare the different shapes. Some of her ex-pupils, now adults, have found those early classes so helpful in reminding them that they must for ever be correct and flowing in their movements and so escape incapacitating pain and long drawn-out treatment, often requiring surgery.
It seems crazy to stand by and watch soaring NHS expenditure without employing methods to reduce it. That form of physical education should be introduced to help not just healthy and strong pupils with their games and gymnastics but also the weaker ones, who should be told how to defeat the traps that are in store for them.
Teachers should be well-trained in physical education. It is not a matter for the biologist as such, but classes should be so cleverly presented as to generate enthusiasm and interest. The session should be seen as having vital importance in the school. It is from that aspect that I wholeheartedly support the amendment so ably proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham.
Baroness Hylton-Foster: I should like to support the suggestion of the noble Baroness for the teaching of first aid in schools. The Red Cross and, I think, St. John's already do that in a great many schools, where it has now become a routine part of their lessons. The children enjoy such teaching, parents approve of it, and it is useful for the children all their lives. I hope that the Minister will be able to give the amendment careful consideration.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: If I may, as a mere male, take part in these proceedings, I should like most heartily to endorse that which has been said by noble Baronesses so far. I should like, without breaching rules of the Committee, to advertise a kind of trailer for a debate that I am hoping to introduce in your Lordships' House and which I know has the support of all sides of the House. It is a Motion on the means of preventing disability, which has been touched upon by both the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, and the noble Baroness who followed her, and it is implicit in this amendment.
It may well be that an amendment does not need to spell out every kind of health teaching that is necessary, but for the purposes of this amendment I believe that the noble Baroness was right to go into the detail that she did. I hope that the Government will take this point away and think about it, and will produce an amendment that is comprehensive, but not in the way that the present amendment is, which may exclude other forms of health education by inadvertence.
Lord Kilmarnock: I, too, should like to support the amendment of the noble Baroness, although it has to be said that it has resource implications. That is probably the argument we shall hear from the Government. However, even if the Government do tell us about the resource implications, I hope that they will not for that reason dismiss the idea behind the amendment.
There is a lot of very good evidence that children are extremely susceptible to influence in schools on the subjects that are mentioned in the amendment. It is conceivable that it might be a better way of spending money than the Government's current advertising programme on television and their leaflet programme on drugs. I believe that one would get closer to the root of the matter if one went at it through the schools. With those words, I should like in principle to support the amendment, and I hope that the Government will not dismiss it simply because of its resource implications.
Viscount Buckmaster: I rise to support the amendment of my noble friend Lady Masham, for whose activities in your Lordships' House I have boundless admiration—and I think that probably goes for all of your Lordships.
I would, however, inject a caveat, and a very strong one, about sex education. When I moved my Amendment No. 49B late last Tuesday night the Committee was very poorly attended and, unfortunately, many of my supporters had had to leave. Nevertheless, at that time I tried to show to the Committee that a great deal (indeed, even most) of the

775
sex education in our schools nowadays is amoral, if not downright immoral. I quoted from a number of booklets and from letters that had been received from parents, and so on. I shall not weary the Committee with the detail now but it is all in the Official Report dealing with my Amendment No. 49B. It cannot be escaped that some of the teaching in these booklets condones, if not advocates, such subjects as under-age sex—both heterosexual and homosexual—incest and even bestiality. All the quotations are there for the Committee to read. Furthermore, some of these booklets actively undermine the sanctity of marriage.
4.30 p.m.
I agree that sex education is necessary, but I very much hope that if the noble Baroness decides to withdraw this amendment and to redraft it she will include a proposal on the lines that sex education should be given within the context of enduring family relations. With that reservation, it gives me great pleasure to support the amendment.
Lord Auckland: Although this is a wide-ranging amendment, I believe that there is much merit in it. The three most important parts of the amendment are diet, hygiene and accident prevention. I believe that those subjects are more important than what we were discussing recently—political education.
Some members of the Committee may have seen on "Newsnight" last night a horrific item from Edinburgh regarding AIDS and the use of needles. The programme was most disturbing. I believe that the whole question of hygiene in schools needs to be highlighted far more than it is. That applies also to diet. There are many qualified young dieticians in this country who could usefully go round the schools and give advice—no more than that.
I must declare an interest in accident prevention as an honorary vice-president for the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents. It is in the schools that accident prevention in the home, on the farm, and so on, can be taught. Therefore, while I think that the amendment is a little widely drawn, the principle of it should be carefully considered by the Government.
Lord Porritt: I support this amendment. As an ancient medico and way down the batting list I feel that it has an awful lot of good common sense and a message of health that we have not heard here for a long time. Most points have been brought out already, but I should like to put two very minor points that I believe to be of importance because they refer to teaching children.
Children love a good many things. They are terribly fond of sport and of machines and toys of all kinds. The subject of health should be taught by the proper people and on that basis it could be made intensely interesting to 80 per cent. of all children. There is nothing more beautiful than the human body. There is nothing that has come up to it in this world. We have never got anywhere near it. On that aspect alone, children can be interested for years and years. If one is talking about machines, you will not find a machine that comes anywhere near the human body.
Therefore, I believe that there is a great basis for being able to teach what the noble Baroness, Lady
776
Masham, put forward. I thoroughly agree with her principle. It would not need to be a compulsory subject, because it would be so intensely interesting. Four out of five children would fall for it and go to the classes all the time. The Government would be well advised to take on this amendment at this time when there is an Education Bill and a chance of putting something worth while into the curriculum.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: As an ex-teacher may I add a few words? I shall not keep the Committee for more than a minute or two. Having spent a lifetime teaching academic subjects, I cannot imagine anything that is more important to teach than the subjects named in this amendment. They appear to me to deal with realities in a way that a great deal that is taught in our schools does not. I support the amendment with all the strength in my power.
Baroness Young: No one can have listened to the proposals behind this amendment by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, and the support that she has received from all parts of the Committee without being conscious of the strength of feeling on this amendment throughout the Committee. I therefore approach what I have to say, bearing in mind the strictures we have had from the noble Lords, Lord Harris of Greenwich and Lord Annan, on the preceding amendment, with trepidation.
I address my remarks to my noble friends on this side of the Committee because this is, after all, a Government Bill and I suggest we look at the basic principles behind it and what it is we are trying to achieve. The Bill is based on a White Paper entitled Better Schools, published for extensive public discussion and setting out a number of fundamental principles about the education system, including how the curriculum is to be managed.
We have had several debates on this subject, and I think it would not be unfair if I said that there is broad agreement throughout the Committee that there should be a major responsibility for the local education authority, the school governors, the head teacher and the teachers. There has been argument on precisely how those responsibilities should be balanced, but the fact is that, basically, we are agreed on this. What the amendment says, in effect, is: "Forget about all that. We are going to issue nationally, from the centre, a prescription about certain subjects which we have decided are more important than all the other subjects. We are not going to prescribe English, mathematics, modern languages, history, geography, the sciences, new technology, engineering, computing or anything else, but we are going to pick on these subjects".
The subjects in the amendment are important. I recognise that. However, we have to decide as a matter of principle whether we want to move down the path of a national education system—and this would have to be prescribed nationally—or whether we want to continue with our devolved system of education. That basically is the principle behind this debate. If we are to move down the road of a nationally prescribed system, we would all have voted for the first amendment on the second Marshalled List, moved by my noble friend Lord Beloff who characteristically

777
made out the case for it, if I may say so, very well indeed. But the Committee decided not to support that amendment. We are now coming back to a series of other amendments saying that these subjects must be prescribed.
Let us consider what the amendment says. It states:
"The articles of government for every school [in the country] shall provide for the teaching of courses of health education".
That includes:
"basic anatomy, first aid and nursing skills, sex education and child care, diet and hygiene, accident prevention and teaching on the dangers of drug, tobacco and alcohol abuse.".
If we put those subjects into the school curriculum resources will be required, as the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, rightly said. Teachers will be required who are very skilled in those subjects. The noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, has already pointed out some of the dangers. I was in my place when he moved his amendment late on Tuesday night, and he pointed out the dangers of sex education, which he did not like and which is included in this amendment.
The great danger is that unless there is a nationally prescribed, detailed curriculum which is laid down for every school in the country we are liable to get variation. Let us face it, there will be variations on a great many of these subjects. For example, in the case of diet, how many people today believe one should be a vegetarian? Now that may be right, and I am not arguing against it, but if one is going to lay it down in the curriculum one has to decide what it is that one is in fact determining that people should eat. I think, therefore, that we may be going down a quite difficult path. I think your Lordships need to think very carefully about the principle and the detail of this Bill before making up its mind to vote on this amendment.
I take very seriously the point behind the amendment, and the Government are doing something about these questions. On gage 20 of the White Paper it says that the curriculum ought to:
"provide moral education, physical education and health education".
The Government have already said about the curriculum studies from 5 to 16 that health education essential for pupils' physical and moral wellbeing may be promoted through the medium of topic work subjects in the curriculum or special courses.
When we look at the subject of drugs, which I think is a very serious issue today, it can be seen that on 30th December 1985 it was agreed that all 96 local education authorities in England have been allocated a share of the £2 million to be devoted next year to the education support grants programme tackling drug misuse. The money, 70 per cent. of it from Government grant, will enable local education authorities to appoint or second a full-time member of staff from April 1986 to stimulate and co-ordinate action within the education service and other agencies and to take other appropriate action in the light of local circumstances. So the Government are already playing a part in the education service in tackling the problem of drugs.
We are all very well aware of the campaign against smoking, and there is great concern about what I understand is now an increasing problem, which is that of children buying alcoholic drinks from
778
supermarkets below the age at which they would be allowed to buy drinks in a restaurant or a pub. It is a very serious matter. I should like to suggest to the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, and her friends that they, too, should think very carefully about just what pressing this amendment would mean. It would drive a coach and horses through this Bill. It would make it much more difficult to resist other amendments which people may feel they should put down; for example, that everybody should be obliged to study computing—I think a very good case could be made out for that today—or English or mathematics. In fact, one could make out a case for the national curriculum.
I think one must remember that in the Bill we are making arrangements for the curriculum to be determined by the local education authority and by the school governors. The school governors now include a good proportion of parent governors who, under the terms of the Bill, will be trained. There is an opportunity given for a special parents' day, when all matters of the curriculum may be raised. With this Bill we are entering a new situation, and I think it is one that your Lordships ought to consider carefully. Before we have even had an opportunity for it to be tried to see how it can work, we ought not to be moving amendments which actually go against the long traditions of British education. The principles in this Bill are intended to enhance our traditional principles of education and make them work better. I hope very much that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: I should like to thank all noble Baronesses and noble Lords who have supported this amendment. At this stage I do not want to waste your Lordships' time because there are many more amendments yet to come, but I should like to say that I do not think that this country takes seriously enough the very important matter of prevention—a stitch in time saves nine. There is a very serious crisis situation that has now arisen because of drugs and AIDS, and, of course, because of the expense on the National Health Service of which we are all aware.
I cannot accept the argument of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, about mathematics, because I do not know of a school that does not teach mathematics. Health concerns every single living person in this country. It is something which matters to us all from the cradle to the grave. Health applies to everyone, but everyone does not have to learn how to use a computer. Computing is a different matter altogether.
When I moved the amendment I said that I had done so in a rather detailed way so that people could understand what lay behind it. The noble Baroness said that there was a provision which read "may" provide. There is a big difference in legislation between "may" and "shall". I agree with the movers of the last amendment (the one before mine) that the time has perhaps come for us to put more emphasis on change. The time has come for change. I do not think that this country takes seriously enough the health provision for society. I shall bring this amendment back in a different form at Report stage. At the moment I am pleased to withdraw this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Swinton: I think that this may be a convenient time to take the Statement. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Lebanon: Terrorism and British Interests
4.46 p.m.
Baroness Young: My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall now repeat a Statement on British interests in the Lebanon and terrorism which is being made in another place by my honourable friend the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, Mr. Renton. The Statement is as follows:
"The British Ambassador to Lebanon, Mr. John Gray, reported that three bodies were found near Beirut earlier this morning. Pinned to one of the bodies was a notice claiming that they had been executed as "CIA spies" by an organisation calling itself the Arab Fedayeen. Mr. Gray is urgently trying to arrange positive identification of the bodies. As the House will know, Mr. Aleck Collett, a British employee of UNRWA, was kidnapped in Lebanon on 25th March 1985. Two British citizens, Mr. Leigh Douglas and Mr. Philip Padfield, were kidnapped on 28th March this year and Mr. Brian Keenan of dual British-Irish nationality was kidnapped in Beirut on 11th April. The House will wish to express to the relatives of the kidnap victims their sympathy in the terrible anxiety they are now undergoing after all the acute stress to which they have already been subjected. Further information will of course be given to the next of kin as soon as this is received.
"Mr. Gray has also reported that another British citizen was kidnapped earlier this morning in West Beirut on his way to the airport. So far we have not received any claim for responsibility of his abduction. The ambassador is making inquiries with the authorities in Beirut and with community leaders.
"Last week, Mr. Gray repeated and reinforced his standing advice to British citizens against remaining in West Beirut and other areas in Lebanon where British citizens are at particular risk. The embassy have taken all reasonable security precautions to protect Mr. Gray and his small staff. We have asked him urgently for his further advice on staffing of the British Embassy and the safety of the remaining British community.
"My right honourable and learned friend held an urgent meeting with his European colleagues in Paris this morning to discuss terrorism. A further meeting will be held early next week to discuss implementation of the recommendations of experts.
"I understand that a suspected explosive device was found this morning at Terminal One of Heathrow Airport. The terminal was evacuated while the device was made safe. A woman was arrested by the police.
"This morning four rockets hit the ambassador's unoccupied residence in West Beirut. Mr. Gray was
780
not present at the time and he reports that there were no casualties, although some damage was caused to the building. No claim for responsibility has been made for this attack.
"The House will wish to pay tribute to Mr. Gray and his staff, who are doing their work in Lebanon with skill and courage in dangerous conditions."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Baroness for repeating that Statement. We also send our sympathies to the families of those who have been killed in Lebanon. We condemn absolutely those who committed these terrible crimes. Would the noble Baroness not agree, however, that this is the first unhappy result of Britain's involvement in the Libyan operation? In the light of this, what steps are the Government taking to protect British citizens in the Middle East, especially the 5,000 British people in Libya itself? Have they been given advice by Her Majesty's Government as to what they should do in the present crisis? Can the noble Baroness say what is the significance of the two British warships that are reported to be sailing in the direction of Sicily? Can she say whether these are connected with the current crisis, and whether they are related to any possibility of evacuation?
Can the noble Baroness also say what is the latest position following the discovery of the bomb at Heathrow? There are reports that the airport is closed down completely. We should like to know whether this is true. On the EC meeting, can she say what the Foreign Ministers' attitude is to our part in this matter? Are they for it, or against it? Does she not now agree that the Government's actions have placed British citizens at home and abroad in unpredictable danger?
Lord Kennet: My Lords, we on these Benches unconditionally condemn and abhor terrorist acts wherever they may be committed, whoever they may be committed against, and whoever they may be committed by. We join with the Labour Opposition and the Government in sending our sympathy to the next of kin of the victims, and our good wishes to British and United States diplomats all over the world and to British and United States subjects working abroad all over the world. The certainty that something like these events would ensue must have been present in the minds of the Government along with all the other factors when they took the decision to allow the American bombers to fly from British airfields. We have an opportunity tomorrow to discuss the wisdom or unwisdom of that decision. For my part, I do not believe that there is very much more that can properly be said today.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I should first like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, for his expression of sympathy, shared by all of us, to the relatives of those who have died in Beirut. I also join with the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, in his utter condemnation of terrorism wherever it may occur. Both noble Lords have asked me a general question as to whether or not the Statement, with its tragic news, is a consequence of the events earlier in the week and

781
particularly the use of the air bases in Britain by American planes. Our answer to this is one that is quite unequivocal. It is a war against terrorism—and war it is. It is harsh and it is uncompromising. It is not of our making, and the brutal and criminal disregard for human life of those who practise the barbaric trade of terrorism is something to be condemned. That is why, having exhausted all other forms at our disposition, we gave our support to the United States action against Libya. It is a terrible fact that there is this terrorism, but we cannot allow our hands to be tied by kidnappers or others who are threatening terrorist actions.
The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, asked me what advice had been given to British citizens. I can confirm that our ambassador in Beirut recently reinforced his advice to British nationals in West Beirut that they should leave unless they had compelling reasons to remain. In the meantime, we have told Britons in Libya to stay calm, to keep their heads down, to restrict their movements and to keep in touch with the Italian embassy, which looks after British interests.
As regards the bomb at Heathrow, I understand that a suspected explosive device was detected this morning at Terminal 1. I cannot confirm the rumour that the noble Lord has heard. If I have any information about that I shall, of course, let him and the House know.
The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, also asked me about the meeting of European Community Foreign Ministers which my right honourable friend attended in Paris this morning. My right honourable friend insisted upon the need for action, not just diplomatic initiatives, to counter state-directed terrorism. No official statement was released, but the Foreign Ministers will meet again in Luxembourg on Monday. We hope that on that occasion they will agree to the recommendations of the working group of experts on terrorism established in January. The House may be glad to know that the Dutch Foreign Minister, who is president, stated that no Foreign Minister had been aware of the imminence of the United States action against Libya during the previous meeting of Foreign Ministers in The Hague on Monday.
I think that this answers the questions that have been raised by the two noble Lords. What is important in this matter, I believe, is that we recognise that we cannot give in to the threats of terrorists. We must continue to do what we believe to be right.
Lord Parry: My Lords, in view of the noble Baroness's advice to British citizens in Libya to keep their heads down, can she give any specific information about employees of oil companies, many of whom originate from the oil refining areas of this country such as my own native area in Pembrokeshire? Can she say whether they are in situ in their jobs or whether they have been removed to the military camps that might be targets, as once threatened?
Baroness Young: My Lords, as regards the British community in Libya, we have no reports of any British casualties. Mr. Dunnachie, who is in the British interests section in the Italian embassy in Tripoli, is in very close touch with British community leaders and
782
with his diplomatic colleagues, especially the Italians. Indeed, we are very grateful for Italian help that we have received. The noble Lord, Lord Parry, is right in saying that we have been unable to offer normal consular protection to the British community since May 1984. There are approximately 5,000 people working there. We understand that one British resident has been detained, but I cannot give any more information at this time. That is the latest information that I have on the position of British citizens in Libya. I can only confirm again the general advice that has been given to them.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that since the end of 1975 there have been regular meetings of European Community Ministers of the Interior? In view of the fact that the terrorist situation in Europe is now, quite clearly, escalating, is it proposed that there should be a special meeting of these Ministers in the near future, or not? If the noble Baroness is not able to answer that question this afternoon, perhaps she will do so tomorrow.
Baroness Young: My Lords, the noble Lord is right in saying that there are regular meetings. As the noble Lord said at the end of his remarks, we shall be having a debate tomorrow. I would prefer to leave any comment on this particular matter until tomorrow, when I think that it would be more helpful to set it in the context of everything else that is happening.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, can the noble Baroness say how many Libyan nationals there are in this country? Is there any estimate of how many of them are dissidents and how many of them are supporters of this remarkable regime?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I do not have the exact number of Libyans in this country. As the noble and learned Lord will be aware, following the assassination of WPC Fletcher two years ago we did take a number of very tough measures against Libyans. We broke off diplomatic relations; we closed the People's Bureau; we imposed a strict visa regime that has had the effect of limiting the number of Libyans entering this country very severely; and we banned, of course, new defence contracts. These measures are of course still in force and are looked at very carefully.
5 p.m.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, can the noble Baroness say—I do not think it was quite clear from her Statement—whether the perpetrators of these three vicious murders made any statement suggesting that they were a reprisal for the Tripoli raid?
Baroness Young: My Lords, no. The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, is quite right. All that we know is, as the Statement says, that pinned to one of the bodies was a notice claiming that they had been executed by an organisation calling itself the Arab Fedayeen.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, the noble Baroness made a rather curious statement during her answer to a supplementary question. She quoted the Dutch

783
Foreign Minister as saying that none of the Foreign Ministers meeting on Monday knew of the American decision. Yet yesterday the Prime Minister in her speech stated that she had consulted with all the Ministers concerned before taking the decision to allow the F-111s to leave this country. Can the noble Baroness tell us this? Did Sir Geoffrey Howe, the Foreign Minister, know? Had he been consulted by the Prime Minister? Did he know that the permission had been given to the Americans to use bases in this country on Monday afternoon, or did he not know?
Baroness Young: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, has misunderstood what I said in answering an earlier question. I shall re-read it in order that there shall be no mistake about it. I said that the Dutch Foreign Minister stated that no Foreign Minister—that is at the European Community Foreign Ministers' meeting in Paris—had been aware of the imminence of the United States action against Libya during the previous meeting of Foreign Ministers in The Hague on Monday. The point that I was making, which is a very important point, is that there were no recriminations over this matter.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I am sorry, but that does not answer my question. Of course I understood what was said in the Statement. But how did the Dutch Foreign Minister know what was in Sir Geoffrey Howe's mind? What we ought to be told is whether Sir Geoffrey Howe did know—as is implied in the Prime Minister's Statement yesterday—that the decision had been taken when he was in discussions with his fellow Foreign Ministers on Monday and when he signed the communiqué asking for restraint on all sides.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I think that when the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, comes to read Hansard he will see that I answered his original question. He has now raised a subsidiary question about this. I can only say that the Foreign Secretary, Sir Geoffrey Howe, for his part had no confirmation of the President's decision to authorise the raids that night—that is to say on Monday night—until his return to London and the meeting with the Prime Minister. There is therefore no question of the Foreign Secretary having negotiated in bad faith the text of The Hague statement. That of course is the point that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister made in the debate yesterday afternoon. There is no difference.
Baroness David: My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness whether the Government are giving any advice to British citizens about travelling to other parts of the Middle East besides the Lebanon and Libya?
Baroness Young: My Lords, we have not issued any official advice about travelling to other parts of the Middle East. We have only given advice quite specifically both about the Lebanon and about Libya.
Lord Stewart of Fulham: My Lords, my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition in this House suggested that there was a connection between these crimes that have recently been committed against British subjects
784
and the use of British bases. I notice that in her reply the noble Baroness did not deny that. She took her stand rather on the proposition that events of this kind must be expected in what had become a war.
If the noble Baroness is right, does not that mean that the action taken by the United States Government—and with our help—will be one item in the chain of a bloody tit-for-tat? Where do we go from there?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I do not think that that is the conclusion which can be drawn from what I have said. I shall of course have a look again at what I have said and indeed at what the noble Lord, Lord Stewart, has said. The point I was making—and it is a very serious point—is that we ourselves as a country have suffered from terrorism. So of course have the United States, and very many other countries. It is a war in that sense which is being perpetrated. We did not believe, and we do not believe, tragic and terrible as it is that three people should have died, that we could be held, as it were, to ransom by kidnappers and terrorists in fighting this war. We must continue to do what we believe to be right. After all, there have been many instances—I could give the noble Lord a list of them—of terrorist activities and of the thousands of people who have died as a consequence.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Baroness would clear up possibly a fairly minor confusion which arises in my mind from her Statement. As your Lordships will recall, the Statement combined two episodes; one was a series of three brutal murders in the Lebanon; and the other was a bomb episode at Heathrow. Does combining these two episodes in the one Statement mean that there is any connection between them apart from the general connection of terrorism as a whole?
Baroness Young: My Lords, no. Nor did I suggest that there was any connection between them. But the Government felt it was right that the House should have all the information about all these various activities which happen to have taken place.
Lord Home of the Hirsel: My Lords, can my noble friend remind the House of this: am I not right in thinking that the hostages were kidnapped almost a month ago?
Baroness Young: My Lords, yes. Two citizens were kidnapped on 24th March this year, and one—Mr. Keenan, who is of dual British-Irish nationality—was kidnapped on 11th April. My noble friend Lord Home is therefore quite right in saying that the kidnapping took place long before the events of last Monday.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, is the Minister aware that some of us are rather surprised and concerned at the expressions which seem to be very prevalent at the moment that this country has been dragged into the "front line" in this war? Would she not agree that we have been in the front line for many years in this war? Would she not also agree, and would she accept from me, that in this war between terrorism and the forces of civilisation many of us would not wish to be anywhere else but in the front line?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I would agree with the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, in saying that we have been in the front line of this war for some time and indeed a list of terrorist activities by Libyans going back to 1979 makes this quite clear. It is a terrible war but I think in principle that it is quite right that we should take a stand in this country and a lead with other countries in Europe in trying to get international co-operation to stamp it out.

Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Education Bill [H.L.]
5.10 p.m.
House again in Committee.
Lord Orr-Ewing Lord Orr-Ewing moved Amendment No. 54:
Before Clause 19, insert the following new clause:
("Copies of the curricula.
. It shall be the duty of the governing body of every school to prepare up to date written statements of the school's curricula and to make copies available to parents on demand.").
The noble Lord said: I shall not detain the Committee for long on this point. I know that the Government are anxious to get on, and they have an easy way to get on, because this amendment is so much in accord with the objects of the Bill that they have only to nod their heads and say yes and we can get on to the next business. The object of the Bill is to improve relationships, strengthen the government of the schools and encourage parents to take a closer interest. The one place where the parents can take a closer interest is in the syllabus.
There has been a scheme from those who are on the extreme political Left to write their own syllabuses. Ms Christine Parker, who is head of social studies at the Lillian Bayliss School in Kennington, says, "You write your own syllabus, assess it and mark it". The hard left have also, when they have any control over schools, tended to make economies not in the administration of schools, not in the more obvious places where you could economise without affecting the standards of education of the children, but in the denial of school books. This gives people of that political persuasion a chance of writing their own syllabuses and riding their own hobby horses. Social studies is a subject in which they glorify, and they tend to concentrate on the rights of the children and the rights of the citizen and very little on their duties and responsibilities.
It is right that syllabuses should be broadly written. I am not at this stage pressing for a centralised syllabus. But we have to recognise that many countries, and particularly France, have a centralised syllabus. Children can go from school to school; you can move your children, and in the same term they can pick up exactly in the same place at the new school. There are many advantages in flexibility.
The Secretary of State suggested that we may come towards a more centralised syllabus, but we are just
786
saying in this amendment, "Please have courage and make the governing body produce a syllabus, and that syllabus should then be available to the parents". That must be in the interests of education. When a child comes home, parents rightly try to build bridges of understanding at the evening meal and on other occasions. They ask, "What did you learn today? What were you doing?" They try to encourage their children to see films in accord with the history part of the syllabus they are studying or to make experiments in the garden shed if they are studying science or the mechanical sciences, and generally to encourage them.
If a syllabus is available to parents, they will know better when schools are running off the rails and feel more in accord and closer to the school, the governing body of the school and the teachers undertaking the teaching of their children. I am sure that the Government will be able to accept this amendment, although they have not been terribly forthcoming on a number of others that we have put forward. I beg to move.
Baroness Cox: In putting my name to this amendment I recognised that the wording was tentative. I suspect that my noble friend the Minister may say that the provisions of the Bill as they now stand meet the purpose of this amendment. I suspect that the word that we should have used is "syllabus" rather than "curriculum".
The purpose of the amendment is essentially twofold, as my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing said. First, it is to enable parents and pupils the better to anticipate the content of a course to be followed during a forthcoming session, be it a term or a year, and also to help parents and pupils to assess the extent to which that course is meeting the objectives set out at the beginning of that session.
One might ask whether such an amendment is necessary. This Bill is all about parents and increasing accountability to parents. As a parent I must say adamantly yes, it is necessary. I think back to my children's education a few years ago. At the local comprehensive school my son was meant to be studying English literature in the critical GCE-CSE year. In the whole first year and almost the first part of the first term of the second, all they did in English literature was two essays on rock music. That was by way of written work in English literature in the land of Shakespeare, Keats, Shelley, Wordsworth, and so on.
So far as maths is concerned, one of my other children in the same critical two years of GCE-CSE work had a teacher who did not, so far as I could make out, believe in teaching maths. He set as homework essays on green ping-pong balls. When I asked at a parents' evening what green ping-pong balls had to do with maths, I was told that the teacher was trying to get the children to think differently. I asked, "What about trying to get them to think mathematically?"!
The example is to show that this amendment is to make sure that parents and pupils can anticipate what should be covered in a course, rather than run into problems and then look at them retrospectively, by which time perhaps months, if not a year, of a school's time—what should be a precious time, providing a child with vital ingredients of education—has been

787
wasted, and it may be too late for that child to make up those misspent months or even a year.
I currently know of one young person in a local comprehensive school at the beginning of the first term of the second year of A-levels who still does not know the full range of books to be studied for the exam. There are cases where this amendment is necessary. It is perfectly feasible from the point of view of teachers to plan ahead and to give an outline of what they intend to do. The purpose is within the spirit of the Bill which is to enable greater accountability to parents by the schools that are responsible for their children's education.
The Earl of Swinton: The effect of this amendment would be to require the governors of all maintained schools to make available a statement of their school's curriculum on demand. My noble friends have explained, however, that what is sought is a very detailed statement; in effect, the syllabuses the pupils will study while they are at school, so that, for example, parents wishing to avoid certain views being taught to their children can make an informed choice of school based on sufficient knowledge.
The Government have sympathy with that view. The Education (School Information) Regulations 1981, made under the 1980 Act, already require the publication of particular facts about each school by the LEA or the governors of a voluntary aided school, as the case may be; those facts include particulars of the curriculum for different age groups, and of arrangements for matters such as curricula choices. Indeed, we believe that Schedule 2 of those regulations already effectively does what the wording of the amendment would achieve, at least as far as choice of school is concerned, although in the case of county and controlled schools the existing duty is on the LEA and not the governors.
As I said, however, my noble friends who have proposed this amendment want to go further than what is required by those regulations. They are looking for the detailed syllabus, and not just a statement of the curriculum, to be available to parents on demand, although in this respect their wording does not seem quite right. I doubt whether the courts would construe
"written statements of the school's curricula"
as a detailed description of the syllabuses and teaching materials to be employed.
I look round at my noble friends this time because I have happy news for them. I am very much attracted by the general principle behind the amendment. If a parent is sufficiently interested to want to go beyond the generality of what is now said by schools about their curriculum in order to learn in much more detail what his or her child will be taught, it should be possible for them to do so. It would be patronising to suggest that such matters should be left to the professionals, and deeply worrying if the parent suspected as my noble friend Lady Cox said, that political or other ideas which were repugnant to him were being presented in a biased manner. While the principle is attractive, however, the way in which that principle is stated has to be got right so that it meets every eventuality.
For these reasons, my noble friends' aims may be better achieved by regulation so that revision in the
788
light of experience would be a good deal easier. It seems likely that the Secretary of State's current regulation-making powers under the Education Act 1980 are sufficient to allow him to make regulations in this vein. I am prepared to undertake that the Government will actively explore the practicality of securing in this way the open access to school curricula and syllabuses which my noble friends wish to see. I must add that we shall also wish to consult our education partners about any such change, as it goes beyond the consultations that preceded the 1980 Act and this Bill. However, I hope that my noble friends will be prepared, in the light of my assurances and with that encouragement, to withdraw this amendment and to allow the Government to pursue the further action that I have outlined.
Viscount Trenchard: I wonder whether my noble friend, before my other noble friend presses or withdraws his amendment, can give some idea of how long this process of consulting over the regulations will take and whether it will be possible, while the Bill is still in this House, to get something slightly firmer than he has told us today?
The Earl of Swinton: We shall continue as quickly as we can with the consultations. I cannot give an undertaking that it will be in this House because we seem to be getting later and later with this Bill. It may be here before we finish the Bill in this House. But, as I said in my answer, my right honourable friend's current regulation-making powers under this Act may be sufficient as they stand. But we wish to consult and I hope it will be as soon as possible. I cannot give an absolute promise that it will be before the Bill has left your Lordships' House, but I hope that it will be.
Lord Orr-Ewing: I thank my noble friend. At least we are pushing at a door that has a chink of it open. I and my noble friends would like to consider the regulations as they now stand to see whether they are in a form sufficiently detailed to cover the points that we have made in these short speeches, provided that my noble friend the Minister will press on in the meantime. If this is delayed there may be time, if not at Report perhaps at Third Reading, to see whether it is necessary to press again an amendment. In the meantime, we shall study the regulations and come back to my noble friend should we not be happy with his assurances. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 19 agreed to.
Clause 20 [Discipline.]:
[Amendment No. 55 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 56:
Page 22, line 10, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsections (1A), (1B) and (1C) below,").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I shall, with the permission of the Committee, speak also to Amendment No. 62, which contains the guts of the change which is proposed, and to Amendment No.

789
99, which provides the necessary definition of the phrase "corporal punishment". I shall try to avoid a detailed historical summary of events over the past four years, since on 25th February 1982 the European Court of Human Rights ruled that corporal punishment in school was degrading treatment and therefore in contravention of the agreement on human rights. But it is necessary for the sake of the Committee and to ensure that we are all talking about the same thing to say something about the events of the last four years.
The Government, although rather slowly, recognised that the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights was binding on this country. Indeed we signed the convention in 1951. After a gap of 17 months in 1983 the Government published a consultative paper on corporal punishment, but I have not used those words in quite the same way, and that legislation was introduced in another place in January 1985.
In introducing that legislation at Second Reading, the Secretary of State for Education and Science acknowledged and proclaimed that there were only three ways in which this country could adhere to its obligations under this international treaty. The first would be to abolish corporal punishment completely in schools. The second would have been what is called a dual system, to say that some schools should allow corporal punishment and some not. The Secretary of State, rightly in my view, said that there would be enormous practical difficulties to that solution. The third was the option taken by the Government and used in the Education (Corporal Punishment) Bill which provided that there should be an exemption in all schools for those parents and pupils over the age of 16 who gave notice of their objection to corporal punishment, and it therefore could not be used against them.
As the Committee will recall, in July last year this House at Report stage passed amendments to the Education (Corporal Punishment) Bill. They were complicated amendments as my noble friend Lady David said in her speech. There was a complicated list of amendments, but the intention was clear. It was clear that the option of exemption—of having some pupils in schools who could be beaten and others sitting next to them who could not—was quite unacceptable. It proved to be unacceptable to the House. After three weeks, the Government recognised the force of that argument or of the situation in which they found themselves and withdrew the Bill completely.
In response to a question from my noble friend on 28th October, the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, said that in this country we honour our international treaty obligations and we shall honour this one. In saying that he clearly recognised that this was an international treaty obligation.
Let us return to the three options open to the Government in dealing with this international treaty obligation. The House has rejected and the Government have abandoned the option of exemption. Unless I have to I shall not enter into the arguments why exemption would have been an
790
unsatisfactory option. The Secretary of State rightly ruled out the option of a dual system. If we are to comply with our international treaty obligations we are therefore left with only one option, the option of complete abolition of corporal punishment in our schools. I say that not as a statement of opinion from myself but because it follows ineluctably from the statements made by the Government and from the analysis made by the Secretary of State.
That is the position in law. It is a matter of amazement to us that the Government have not taken the opportunity of a Bill that covers a wide range of educational subjects—which especially in Clauses 20 to 22 contains a detailed prescription about discipline in schools—to fulfill their obligations under international law in the only way effectively open to them. We are offering the Government a lifeline with this amendment. We are offering them an opportunity to comply, after more than four years, with the obligations in a way that has been shown to conform with the sentiments of the Committee and to be the only option truly open to us.
It is not just those noble Lords who have put their names to this amendment who feel in that way. Virtually everybody engaged in the education process either explicity believes in the abolition of corporal punishment in our schools or agrees that the abolition of corporal punishment is a better alternative than the exemption proposed in the Education (Corporal Punishment) Bill last year.
5.30 p.m.
Specifically, the National Union of Teachers, the Educational Institute for Scotland, the National Association of Headteachers, the Secondary Heads Association—virtually all of the organisations, medical and psychiatric, concerned with these matters are in favour of the total abolition of corporal punishment in our schools. Of the others, the Professional Association of Teachers, the National Association of Schoolmasters and Union of Women Teachers, the Association of County Councils, the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, the Society of Education Officers—and I could go on; but I shall not. All of these recognise that abolition is a better alternative than exemption and that this is now the way in which we should proceed. Not only that, but when the matter was debated in this House last summer there were 19 out of 104 local education authorities in England and Wales and six out of 12 local education authorities in Scotland who had already abolished corporal punishment in their schools.
In the short time since that Bill, the 19 has gone up to 24 and the six has gone up to eight. There has been no suggestion at any time that any local education authority which had already abolished corporal punishment should return to corporal punishment as a discipline. I have deliberately concentrated so far on the issues of the treaty obligations of the Government and on the virtually universal support for abolition of corporal punishment among those concerned with education in our schools. But I must say as well that I feel very strongly personally about this issue. I feel very strongly that the words "degrading treatment" which are used in the convention on human rights and which

791
were upheld by the European Court of Human Rights are exactly the right words.
It is degrading for adults to beat children. There can be no other description of that practice. That practice is one that I suffered myself at school and I know exactly what it means. That practice is one that breaks down the relationship of trust and mutual self-confidence which in my view is absolutely essential if our schools are to continue to provide the education suitable for living in an adult world. Corporal punishment is a form of violence. Violence encourages violence. It gives those who administer it and those who suffer by it the impression that it is an acceptable response to other ills and to other violence in our society. That cannot be acceptable as a serious element in our school discipline.
Corporal punishment is wrong in itself. It does not work. We have a clear and perfect opportunity here to put matters right, to put the Government in the right in the light of their international obligations. I very much hope that the Committee will take it by passing these amendments.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: I was beaten quite frequently at school, but I am not at all violent. Most of my friends were beaten at school, but I do not know any who were violent. With due respect to the noble Lord, I really think that he is exaggerating a great deal. What does he mean by "corporal punishment"? Does he call a slap on the hand of a small boy given by a mistress corporal punishment? How are you going to have discipline in schools? I do not think that you will get it by writing out lines. Surely, it would be a very bad time now to weaken discipline when juvenile crime is so great and is increasing all the time. There appears to be very little discipline among young people today. My local village—and I may have said this before—five or six months ago was featured on television as the most burgled village in England, though my property was not burgled. The extraordinary thing is that those concerned were all young men—and some of them were caught—who were all in good jobs earning good money yet they were behaving in the most appalling way. They were extremely ill-disciplined.
I really cannot support such an amendment and the noble Lord's speech on corporal punishment. I remember the EEC Bill as it was a year or so ago. It would be quite crazy that one boy's parents may say that their son should not receive corporal punishment while another boy's parents may say that he should. You cannot have that. You either have to abolish corporal punishment altogether, which I am personally against, or you do not; but you certainly cannot have it as I have just described.
Lord Beloff: I hope that the Committee although moved, perhaps moved to tears, by the recollections of Lord McIntosh's painful childhood, will not go on to believe that it should legislate in the light of that experience. I was more fortunate in my schooling, although it is true that on one occasion on which I had cut PT in order to go to an exhibition of paintings by Picasso, I was told that if I had been a little younger I would have been beaten. But, in fact, I was not.
But it seems to me, looking at this amendment on the face of it, that it is the most extraordinary thing to
792
put into a Bill; because we are dealing with the powers of headteachers to enforce discipline and we are asked to include the proviso, "provided that such measures do not amount to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment". It seems to me that if I were a headteacher, the suggestion in a Bill, in an Act of Parliament, that I was capable of submitting my pupils to inhuman or degrading treatment would be extremely insulting. Noble Lords opposite in the course of the teachers' dispute have frequently said that one of the reasons is that the teaching profession feels itself unjustly criticised. Nothing that has been said in criticism of the teaching profession is anything like as outrageous in its implications as the suggestion that British headteachers are capable of subjecting their pupils to inhuman and degrading punishments.
It is of course correct—and I would not dispute the legal point with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey—that, given the convention to which we acceded and given the extraordinary interpretation which the European Court has placed upon it in the matter of school discipline, we may be faced with the alternative either of abolishing corporal punishment by law or, as I would prefer, of giving notice of denouncing that convention. I say that not because I am particularly in favour of corporal punishment. If I were a headmaster or indeed in the teaching profession I doubt whether I should myself be a very strong advocate of it; but it seems to me that we should not allow—and I have said this in this House before—a court of jurists to intervene in a matter so necessarily domestic to a particular country as the way in which discipline is maintained in its schools and to intervene by stretching language in the way in which they have stretched it; because, after all, we are not talking about something which is very recent. Corporal punishment has been known in one form or another in schools as long as there have been schools—long before the time of the painful childhood of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh.
We are asked on this say-so to do something which many teachers would like to do—perhaps now, indeed, as the noble Lord has said, most teachers would like to do. But it seems to me an extraordinary basis on which to legislate in a Bill which is concerned with the general welfare of education. I hope that the Committee will not accept this amendment.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: I rise in support of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. All my life I have been against corporal punishment in schools. I think that everything he said about it is absolutely correct. Naturally, like everybody else, I have nieces and nephews and there are lots of families I have had connections with. I have been chairman of an education committee. I have had a great deal of experience. I was never beaten—I suppose I might have been, but I never was—and I entirely agree with what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said.
Corporal punishment is being given up more and more every year by school teachers. They do not want it. It is no way to train children or persuade them that they are wrong to treat them in this violent manner. I cannot understand my noble friend Lord Beloff saying that this is something which does not apply in an Education Bill. We are dealing in this Bill with all sorts

793
of conditions in which education is being organised in this country. The idea that in the year 1986 we should still go on thinking that this is the way to discipline children is incredible. It is so out of date that it does not seem to me to make sense.
I shall not repeat what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said because he said it much better than I could, but corporal punishment is getting less and less and year by year many schools are abolishing it. In my opinion, it has no real support, except perhaps from those who are very old-fashioned in thinking that it is a good way of dealing with children. Had I had children I should absolutely hate to think of them being beaten at any point, and nor would I dream of ever beating any child. I think it is a most degrading and hopeless way of dealing with children.
You must have discipline, but you can have it by talking, by demonstration or by anything you like apart from violence. I hope very much that the Committee will support the noble Lord in this amendment if he presses it. Apart from everything else, and the fact that it fits in with our European colleagues, corporal punishment seems to me an uncivilised way of dealing with children. To do away with it simply shows that we have a civilised idea of education.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: I apologise in advance if some of the things that I want to say on this occasion are a little muddled. I had so many ideas coming up from Sussex in the train, but the Southern Region is not as smooth as it might be and so in some places I found that I could not read my own writing. That, as an ex-schoolmaster, I find bad.
Also as an ex-schoolmaster, I must say that I have had quite a lot to do with this. I have used corporal punishment as headmaster of a school at a time, years ago now, when I felt (and I do not think I was wrong) that staff and boys expected it of me. But I finally abandoned it. I should like to give you my thoughts about the position nowadays. It seems to me that in a large number of schools corporal punishment is not used any longer because the need to use it is not felt to be there. These are the good schools, schools where there is a good head teacher, a good, caring staff and the pupils come from good, caring families. I would not say it was impossible that a head teacher kept in a dark cupboard somewhere a weapon which has been used at sometime in the past, and there may be dark hints from the children that it is still there, but it has not been used for 20 years and it is highly unlikely that it will be used again.
5.45 p.m.
This is the case, as I say, in the good schools but there are also schools where there is not such a good atmosphere, where staff and pupils are dangerously polarised into the "them and us" syndrome and where discipline is permanently near to breaking-point. In those circumstances, the use of corporal punishment is probably frequent and my feeling is that it is damaging. Research has shown, for example, that cigarette consumption goes up among children who are beaten for smoking; that there is an increase in delinquency, more classroom misbehaviour, more
794
vandalism, lower attendance rates and worse exam results. I am quoting from a research report issued by the University of Wales in 1977.
I feel strongly that the use of the cane tends to increase tension in schools where it already exists, to de-sensitise and sour relations between staff and pupils and to widen and deepen the gulf between them. Furthermore, the children in such schools will know that there are schools where corporal punishment is not used and also that those are the best schools. They will know that their school is not one of them and is thus a bad or a second-rate school and that they are bad or second-rate pupils. Thus they devalue themselves and worsen an already bad position. I should like to say one more thing. They would also know about the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, because, although they are children, they know more than one thinks. That is bound to have the effect of discrediting corporal punishment as a sanction and of discrediting the teachers who use it.
I feel that the climate of opinion has changed greatly in the last 20 years, and I urge your Lordships to bring about a change which, let it be said, all our European neighbours have already brought about, ours being the only country left in Europe that still uses this form of punishment. One last thing: the only occasion on which corporal punishment was reintroduced, having been abolished, was in Nazi Germany.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: As I have put my name down to this amendment, I should like to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, in the impressive things that she said. I am sure she is right in saying that corporal punishment is being given up in the better schools in this country as year succeeds year. When this subject was last debated we heard from the noble Lord, Lord of Ross of Marnock, and although this Bill is confined to England and Wales, I should like to follow the noble Lord by saying that in Scotland 90 per cent. of the children are no longer subject to this punishment. This Bill hardly matters in so far as Scotland is concerned, except for that poor 10 per cent. who are still subject to this punishment. England and Wales do not have such a good record, and that is what this Bill is concerned with today.
I should like also to say that I am glad to have followed the noble Lord who has just spoken, because he has personal experience as a headmaster, and also to follow the noble Lord, Lord Beloff. He and I, only a day or so ago, joined in an amendment, and I am sorry that we are differing today. He, like the noble Lord who moved this amendment, gave his personal experience; and this is a declaration of interest in which both Houses of Parliament sometimes indulge on proper occasions. But in my experience a declaration of interest is more commonly a boast, and the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, successfully boasted today in his declaration of interest as to what a cultured child he was; he told us of his precocious interest in Picasso. I am sure that none of us doubt that he was an extremely cultured child, but we are glad to have that confirmation.
The noble Lord who opened this debate dealt at length with the European convention and I think I must do so too, because this is crucial to the subject. We ratified that convention in 1951. Cases are first

795
dealt with by the Commission, and only a few reach the European Court when judgment is final. There are three relevant cases which have reached a conclusion already and there are some 40 in the pipeline. That is almost inevitable.
This time last year, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, said that in his opinion it was 99 to 1 certain that when the next decision comes from the European Court it will condemn all corporal punishment in schools as degrading. The question to my mind is whether, we as a country, are to be put in the position of being so degraded in the view of our friends and neighbours abroad as to be told publicly by an international court of law that we are allowing a degrading punishment in our schools in breach of the convention.
In view of the near certainty of that happening next time, should we not seize the opportunity that the Bill presents to forestall an endless procession of cases which otherwise will inevitably be brought before the court of human rights?
As the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said when he moved the amendment, the Government had three choices after the Campbell and Cosans case in 1982. There is the course which is laid before you today which is to abolish corporal punishment in schools altogether. There was the course that Sir Keith Joseph quite rightly rejected, of having two kinds of school—one in which a pupil could be beaten and one in which he could not. The third course was the one which Sir Keith adopted last year—to have two kinds of pupil, those whose parents allowed them to be beaten and those who did not. Two courses have been rejected. The idea of having two kinds of school was rejected by Sir Keith Joseph. Last year this House rejected the third kind, which was to have two kinds of pupil.
There remains only one course. There is no choice, unless the Government are to do the unthinkable, which they have repeatedly said that they will not, which is to denounce the convention. The Government have given the clearest indications from time to time, and I think the last occasion was when the noble Earl on the Front Bench replied to a Question from the noble Baroness, Lady David, that the Government had every intention of fulfilling their international obligations. In view of what the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, has said about denouncing the treaty, I should like a positive assurance from the Front Bench today that they have no intention of doing any such thing.
I hope that the Government will welcome these amendments as a merciful release from an intolerable position. For those reasons alone, and I have many more, I commend the amendments to the Committee.
Lord Jacques: The noble Lord, Lord Beloff, told us that he thought that the European convention should not interfere in what is a domestic matter. I am inclined to agree with that. I believe that by charter and convention we have in Europe placed more restrictions on individual states than the federal government do in America. In America several matters are left to the states whereas we try to inhibit
796
the actions of individual states. I entirely agree with the noble Lord but that is not the question before the Committee. The question before the Committee is whether there should be corporal punishment, regardless of the convention.
I believe on balance that there should not be. Even the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, said that were he a headmaster he probably would not have it in his school. I definitely would not have it because I believe that if we are to have successful schools there must be a happy atmosphere, an atmosphere of respect on both sides. I found that in management. I think that it is equally important in schools and I would cultivate it. Corporal punishment has no part to play in achieving the kind of atmosphere that is essential to the good management of the school and for good behaviour in the school.
Baroness Masham of Ikon: May I just add one quick word? I believe that children may behave badly at school as a cry for help. Their parents' marriage may be breaking up or there may be other serious problems. The head teacher should discover the real reason for bad behaviour, and therefore I too support the amendment.
Lord Monkswell: The question before us this evening is whether we should beat children or whether we should not. We all feel revulsion when we learn in the media or in newspapers of cases of children being beaten by their parents, their guardians or someone who abducts them. Surely it is a nonsense for us to be reviled by that and yet at the same time consider by official sanction, legally to give authority to some members of our society to beat children in an official capacity.
One of the problems that the Committee faces is that 95 per cent. of its members were probably beaten at school in their youth. I am sure that many of us will turn round and say, "It did not do us any harm, why should it do anybody any harm?" I must profess a certain ambivalence because I went to school in Scotland at a time when the practice was to use the tawse frequently and regularly. I was subjected to it as were all my classmates.
I can remember two of my classmates. They were good, well-behaved children who felt out of things because they saw their peers being beaten as a normal process. Therefore they were naughty so that they would be beaten. They were beaten to such an extent that they were appalled. They cried and were desperately afraid but they faced that because they did not want to feel isolated from their peer group. That is a ridiculous situation to be in.
I am particularly concerned about the alternatives. A number of the Commitee have said that corporal punishment is a form of discipline and punishment that must or must not be allowed. I should like to pose the question differently to the Committee. Surely it is wrong to say that we must have some form of punishment. I can remember my schooldays. It may be that they are not so long ago compared with those of some other noble Lords. I remember a number of my teachers who did not need to use corporal punishment. They did not even need to bring out the belt. I suspect that one or two of them, even if it were

797
against the rules of their union and the education authority, did not have one. They did not need to use the belt or any other form of punishment because they were good teachers.
6 p.m.
Something close to home is the fact that a couple of years ago my wife went back to teaching after 10 years' absence. She found if difficult, as I am sure most teachers do nowadays. She was faced with the dilemma of whether to try to keep control of her class, to exert discipline, or whether to teach the children. For the first year, she thought that her prime task in life was to keep the class under control, to discipline them, and she used all her energies to that end. She, I think, has changed—and I welcome and recognise that change—to the extent that she now thinks in terms of trying to teach the children, to develop their interest, to bring the best out of them, rather than thinking in terms of pure discipline. I am sure that even (dare I say it?) the Mad Monk has that aspiration, but he sometimes does not help his case very well, in believing that what we should try to do is to support the good teachers, to give them every assistance. If we deny the bad teachers the use of corporal punishment, we may give some encouragement to the good teachers and to the good practices in education, which quite clearly demonstrate that if you have a good teacher you do not need corporal punishment—and the very best teachers do not even need any form of punishment at all.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: What the noble Lord has said is perfectly true. I want to reiterate two points that have been made this afternoon, and I shall be very brief. First, it has just been said by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, that if children are bad you have to look in the home. From many years of having had dealings with children, I know this so well. They are not bad because of anything that happens, or does not happen, at school: they are bad because of what happens at home.
Secondly, I think on reflection that this business of corporal punishment is a kind of curious relic or survival of the medieval mortification of the flesh, and we have advanced beyond that. I am thinking of some other words of the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, when she was speaking to her own amendment about the teaching of such things as the care of the body in schools. I think that we should be thinking along those lines. We have reached a stage in evolution where we must realise that our bodies are very beautiful and must be cared for, and the suggestion of corporal punishment is a total denial of that and a reversion to medieval ways of thinking.
Baroness Young: I am very conscious, once again, in getting up to speak in reply for the Government to these amendments, of the strength of feeling on this subject in all parts of the Committee; and the matter was very fully debated a year ago on a Government Bill. There is one point which I should like to clear up at the very start of my remarks, and I should like to say what in fact was the European Court's ruling. It is important to remember that it did not call for the abolition of corporal punishment. The European Court of Human Rights has not ruled that corporal
798
punishment is degrading or inhuman: it ruled merely that the philosophical convictions of the parents should be respected. That is the position in which we find ourselves.
We come to this whole question of discipline—and that is what Clause 20 is concerned with—and, again, we have to see this whole issue in relation to the rest of the Bill. The principal parts of the Bill, which we have already debated, are concerned with the balance between the local education authority, the school governors and the head teacher. It will be noted that Clause 20 begins by stating that it is:
"the duty of the head teacher to determine measures (which may include the making of rules and provision for enforcing them) to be taken with a view to"—
and then it sets out the whole possibilities of good behaviour and of regulating the conduct of pupils.
It is very important to remember that, unlike what was said by my noble friend Lady Elliot, no one is saying to teachers that they must use corporal punishment. She was absolutely right in saying that large numbers of authorities have given it up. That is their choice. They have decided to give it up. No one, not least the Government, is arguing that they should be obliged to reintroduce it or to use it if they do not wish to do so. But that is a very far cry from saying, by statute, that no teacher in any school in the United Kingdom, or at any rate in England and Wales, which this Bill covers, should ever use corporal punishment of any sort, at any time, in any school, which is the effect of the amendment before the Committee.
The effect of this on the whole question of punishment has to be seen against the background of the decisions, and particularly of the power, of the governors who will be ultimately responsible for discipline and will include among their number a high proportion of parents who, once again, will be trained so that they will take a responsible part in the activities of the school, against all the other opportunities that will be raised.
The noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, in his first intervention on these amendments, referred to what happens in other countries. It is true, generally speaking, that in Europe corporal punishment does not apply. However, as he will probably know much better than I, the whole system of education is very different there and the role of the teacher is somewhat different and, I think he will agree, much more restricted than it is in our schools. They say that they go to school to teach. That is their job, and nothing else. Generally speaking, in our British system we have asked for more than that from teachers. Therefore, the whole philosophy of our teaching system has been somewhat different.
If we are looking at the foreign experience, English-speaking countries, on the whole, retain the sanction of corporal punishment. After all, it can be used as a sanction. It can be there and not used, but can be quite effective because it is there even if it is not used. Anyone who has had any experience of children will know that.
Lord Monkswell: May I—
Baroness Young: If I may finish my train of thought, I shall then give the noble Lord a chance to speak. The

799
noble Lord, Lord Henderson, also spoke about what is happening in our schools. He, too, talked of the number of authorities who have given up corporal punishment. Of course that is so, and each year brings more authorities who have done that. That is their choice. They have not had it forced upon them by national statute. The local authority has decided, and that is what it has chosen to do.
But if the noble Lord looks at the figures of the latest Mori poll which has been taken on the subject—this is a poll taken in February 1985—they show that some 63 per cent. of parents interviewed favoured the use of corporal punishment in schools; a slightly higher proportion, 65 per cent., said that they would give schools permission to use corporal punishment on their own children; and only 33 per cent. of parents favoured abolition. I will now give way.
Lord Monkswell: I thank the Minister for giving way. She made reference to the fact that English-speaking countries engage in corporal punishment. Does that include the United States of America?
Baroness Young: I should not like to comment on the systems of discipline within the United States of America. I think I am right in saying that education is a state matter, and therefore the position will vary from state to state. I think I would be unwise to comment unbriefed on this subject. But as a general rule, and certainly in some of the countries that I have visited, corporal punishment has at least been available. I could not say whether or not it is used, but it is certainly available. What we are talking about on this amendment is legislating to abolish it throughout the educational system in England and Wales.
If a school decides not to use corporal punishment or if a local education authority decides not to apply corporal punishment, that is not a decision with which the Government would quarrel. The important point is that it would be either the school's decision or the local authority's decision. It would not be a decision that had been imposed on them.
The principle behind these amendments is one that cuts across the general principle that lies behind this Bill which is to maintain what have been the traditional characteristics of the British education system in a devolved system. Within that system the discipline that is applied in the schools would be a matter for decision by the schools themselves or by the local education authorities. This amendment would change that and say that no school and no authority could have corporal punishment, regardless of the wishes or the views of anybody there. One needs to think carefully whether we believe in principle that that should be the case. I hope that with the arguments I have given, the Committee will not accept this amendment.
I can now tell the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, the answer to his question. I gather that most states in the United States allow corporal punishment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I do not want to detain the Committee but the impression left of the legal position by the Minister is so far from reality that it is necessary to correct it. The noble Baroness said that the European Court's ruling was only that the
800
philosophical convictions of parents ought to be respected, but the Government have recognised that that means that corporal punishment cannot be used in our schools against the wishes of parents. This is the first time we have heard that view put by the Government. Until now the view has been taken that the Government has only three options open to them. It was not just I but the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, who made that clear.
Both of the alternatives to abolition have been rejected either by this House or by the Secretary of State himself. Therefore, the only way in which we can comply with the European Court of Justice is by abolishing corporal punishment in all our schools. That has been the position of the Government. It is a remarkable change in that position as expressed by the noble Baroness to suggest that it can still be left as a matter for local options. If the noble Baroness were correct, it would mean that in a school where a parent objected to corporal punishment it could not be allowed anywhere in that school. The Government are not proposing that. It is not in the Bill.
I suggest to the Committee that the amendments which have been proposed are not only right in themselves—the strength of feeling has been widely expressed in the Committee this afternoon—but are in accordance with requirements under international law. I invite those who oppose corporal punishment in principle, those who may not feel so strongly about it in principle but reject the exemption amendment and those who have an ear for the views expressed by everybody involved in the educational process, and, I might add, the churches as well—both the Church of Enlgand and the Roman Catholic Church have expressed the view to their schools that corporal punishment should not be used—I invite anybody who agrees with any of these principles to support this amendment and the amendments that go with it.
6.15 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 56) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 94; Not-Contents, 92.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Ely, Bp.

Ampthill, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Ardwick, L.

Falkender, B.

Aylestone, L.

Gallacher, L.

Banks, L.

Gibson, L.

Barnett, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Bernstein, L.

Gregson, L.

Blease, L.

Hampton, L.

Boothby, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Bottomley, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Briginshaw, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Buckmaster, V.

Hayter, L.

Caradon, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Crawshaw of Aintree, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Jacques, L.

David, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Diamond, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Kilmarnock, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Kissin, L.

801

Lawrence, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Listowel, E.

Rochester, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Seear, B.

Lockwood, B.

Serota, B.

Longford, E.

Shackleton, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Stedman, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Mayhew, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Meston, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Milverton, L.

Terrington, L.

Mishcon, L.

Tordoff, L. [Teller.]

Monkswell, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Mountevans, L.

Underhill, L.

Mulley, L.

Vickers, B.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Nicol, B.

Whaddon, L.

O'Brien of Lothbury, L.

White, B.

Oram, L.

Wigoder, L.

Parry, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Phillips, B.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Winterbottom, L.

Ypres, E.

Prys-Davies, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Lauderdale, E.

Aldington, L.

Layton, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Beloff, L.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Belstead, L.

Lothian, M.

Bessborough, E.

Lurgan, L.

Boardman, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Mancroft, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Marley, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Broxbourne, L.

Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Merrivale, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Mersey, V.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Cathcart, E.

Mottistone, L.

Chelwood, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Coleraine, L.

Munster, E.

Colwyn, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Norrie, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Onslow, E.

Cox, B.

Orkney, E.

Craigavon, V.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Croft, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Cross, V.

Rankeillour, L.

Davidson, V.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Rugby, L.

Elliot of Morpeth, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Elton, L.

Shannon, E.

Ferrers, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Somers, L.

Gisborough, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Glanusk, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Sudeley, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Swinfen, L.

Greenway, L.

Swinton, E.

Haig, E.

Teynham, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Halsbury, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Henley, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Hives, L.

Wilberforce, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Wolfson, L.

Hooper, B.

Wynford, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Young, B.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
6.23 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 56A:
Page 22, line 12, at end insert (", in compliance with such requirements of the local education authority as they may specify.").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 56A, perhaps I may be permitted to ask the Government what their intentions are likely to be in the light of the decision that the Committee has just taken? It seems to us that the Committee has now expressed a view on two occasions—admittedly by narrow majorities in each case—that the total abolition of corporal punishment is what your Lordships' House wants. In moving Amendment No. 56A I should like to give the representatives of the Government an opportunity to say what their intentions are; and if they cannot say so now—and I appreciate that they may have some difficulty—to indicate when and in what form they will make their intentions clear about the wishes of your Lordships' House and about the future of corporal punishment in our schools.
The Earl of Swinton: I think the Government are fairly used to being defeated in your Lordships' House, and it is not the usual understanding of this House that the Government necessarily get up and straightaway say what they feel about it, and I do not intend to do so on this occasion.
Lord Parry: Is the noble Lord saying he actually takes pleasure in that punishment?
The Earl of Swinton: Corporal punishment has just been abolished in your Lordships' House.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I appreciate that I was caning it a bit in asking for an immediate reply, but I still think it will be necessary for the Government to express their views on the way in which the law stands and how we are to comply with the requirements of the European Court of Justice which have, until this afternoon, been accepted by the Government as being binding. Through the usual channels I shall seek to find further opportunities for your Lordships' House to interrogate the Government and to make sure that the Government make their position clear.
We are still in Amendment No. 56A on the subject of discipline and we are dealing with the first of the three clauses in the Bill which deal with discipline which are described in the Votes on Clauses in a way which does not seem to me for once entirely to represent the implications of the Bill. The clauses that we are dealing with specify that the head teacher has a duty to determine measures to promote good behaviour and so on, in the school, and to regulate the conduct of pupils. They provide for the power to exclude a pupil to be exercised only by the head teacher, and for a whole series of consequential procedures to be followed if there is what appears to be a permanent exclusion.
The Notes on Clauses say that the head teacher is under a duty to consult the local education authority about disciplinary measures. However, if we look at Clauses 20 to 22 we find that in Clause 20(3)(c) the actual requirement on the head teacher and the

803
governing body is not to consult the local education authority, except in the case of exclusion, but to consider representations from the local education authority on disciplinary policies.
I appreciate that the object of the Bill is to see to it that the increased representativeness of the governing bodies provided in Part II is reflected in increased powers in Part III. As I have said on many occasions, we are not opposed to the general drift of that argument, and in general we support both of these elements in the Bill. There must at the same time, however, be an effective balance between the responsibilities and powers of the local education authority, the governing body and the head teachers. I suggest to the Committee that Clause 20, as drafted, does not in fact deal with that. That is the reason for the amendments which we are putting forward.
In moving Amendment No. 56A I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 58 and 59A, and I should like to make it clear—because it may not be from the way the Marshalled List is presented, and that is entirely my fault—that I shall not be moving Amendments Nos. 57, 59 and 60 which were intended to be withdrawn when Amendment No. 55 was withdrawn from the Marshalled List.
What Amendments Nos. 56A, 58 and 59 say is that the local education authority shall have the right to set down certain requirements of governing bodies and of head teachers through the governing bodies in disciplinary matters. That may appear to introduce an element of centralism; it may appear that we are returning to the overriding powers of local authorities. I assure the Committee that we are doing no more than is necessary in order to ensure the coherence of an education service within an education authority.
6.30 p.m.
I take the example of Poundswick School in Manchester, where there has been a dispute between the staff and the head teacher of one school against the local education authority. That case was referred to on a number of occasions on Second Reading, and I do not wish to go into the details of it. Whatever view one may take of the rights or wrongs of that issue, the fact of the matter is that the existing provision for discipline has not been adequate to secure an agreement or a conclusion between the Manchester education committee and the head teacher and staff of Poundswick School.
Something must be done to put that situation right. In one way or another, somebody must bring that process of conflict to an end. I suggest to your Lordships that Clauses 20 to 22 do not deal with that situation. They do not secure that all schools will work together as they ought to within an education authority to provide a common standard of discipline that is accepted across all the schools within that education authority and which can be applied, when it is necessary, to exclude a pupil from one school but accept him for another—because the overriding responsibility for education is held by the local education authority. It is possible to exclude a child from one school but it is not possible for a local education authority to exclude a child from education altogether. That is the current state of the law, and it
804
is the state of the law as it would be continued under the Bill.
We are saying that, ultimately, somebody has to grasp the nettle. If there is a dispute and there is a difficulty, then someone must say that enough is enough. The disciplinary codes in schools must at least not be incompatible.
The Government may answer that Clause 22 provides for the situation in certain circumstances, where it states that a local education authority may take such steps,
"as they consider are required to prevent the breakdown, or continuing breakdown, of discipline at the school".
No doubt that is a necessary provision, as the Government recognise, but I suggest to the Committee that it is not enough. I suggest that it deals with the matter only when disputes, difficulties or disciplinary problems have already gone too far. It is not right to leave it until there is a situation of "breakdown, or continuing breakdown" for the local authority to have the right and the duty to intervene. It is consistent with the responsibility of a local education authority to its electors, and to all of those who take part in education in its area, that ultimately they should be listened to when disciplinary codes are being drawn up. That is what the amendments are intended to provide, and I hope that they will receive the support of the Committee.
Baroness Young: The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, in introducing his amendment, asked what is the position of the Government in respect of the European Court's ruling on corporal punishment. Last year we introduced an Education Bill to allow parents to exempt their children from corporal punishment. In so doing we were seeking to reconcile the twin objectives of securing compliance with the European Court's ruling and, at the same time, of respecting the widespread feeling in favour of the availability of corporal punishment.
In doing that, were were adopting what the court had itself mentioned as a possible means of implementation. Much of the criticism of that Bill was in our view exaggerated, but in view of the decision of your Lordships at Report stage in July 1985 in favour of abolition we decided not to proceed further with that Bill. The position now is that we are still considering what action to take to implement the European Court's ruling.
As to the specific amendments to which the noble Lord has spoken, they in fact seek to give local education authorities a direct say in matters affecting the discipline of a school. We believe that allowing local education authorities to lay down disciplinary requirements on schools would not be compatible with the intentions of this part of the Bill. We believe that discipline should be primarily a matter for the school, with general principles being established by the governing body and not by the local education authority. It is an essential element of the Government's view that the direction of the conduct of a school should be the responsibility of the governing body. That body should be the guarantor for a school's identity and will exercise an important influence over the ethos of the school.

805
What we have done is to provide for the local education authority to be consulted where new disciplinary procedures might be expected to lead to additional expenditure or to affect the LEA's responsibility as an employer. However, we see those purely as long stop arrangements, equally reserving a right under Clause 22 for the LEA to intervene if a breakdown of discipline is threatened or has occurred. It is intended as a measure of last resort that has regard to the LEA's overall responsibility for securing the provision of good education in its area. Thus the main thrust of our proposals is to reduce the LEA's influence on school discipline. The proposed amendments would do the reverse: they would consolidate it. In aided and special agreement schools, the amendments could actually increase it.
I hope that with that explanation of the effects as we see them of the amendments, which we believe would not be compatible with the principles of the Bill, and having described the role as we see it of the governing body, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw this amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I have listened very carefully to what has been said by the noble Baroness. I am grateful that she felt able to make a statement about the Government's position on the issue of corporal punishment. I felt sure that one had been drafted for the eventuality of the Government being defeated, but I thought that it might take a few minutes for it to reach the Front Bench.
On the issue of the amendments now before the Committee, the noble Baroness expressed the situation quite correctly. It is true that the amendments propose to retain a rather stronger reserve power for the local authority in disciplinary matters than is the Government's intention. I do not deny that in any way. That certainly would be the effect of the amendment, and it is certainly the amendment's intention as well.
I have to ask the Minister: if she is entirely satisfied with the provisions of the Bill on matters of discipline, then how does she see a continuing conflict such as that which we have seen in Manchester over Poundswick School being resolved when the law has been reformulated in the terms of the Bill? It seems to me that legislation of this kind should be able to deal with the practical questions that are being found in our schools.
It is not just a matter of Poundswick School, because one could ask whether there was adequate provision to deal with the problems at Drummond Middle School in Bradford or the problems that arose in London some years ago, when there were extreme conflicts between governing bodies, the local education authority, and the teachers in a school. Surely the intention of the Government in putting forward this Bill must be to resolve conflict in our schools and they must be able to show how this Bill would have resolved or could still resolve the conflicts which have in practice arisen in our schools under existing legislation. I do not think that is an unreasonable question.
The Government had adequate warning on Second Reading, because a number of noble Lords referred to
806
these matters when we considered the Bill then. I should like to give the Minister an opportunity to tell us how she would see a dispute about the exclusion of a pupil between the head teacher of a school and a local education authority being resolved under the terms of Clauses 20, 21 and 22. I shall be delighted to give way if the Minister feels able to respond to that question. I shall be delighted to say another sentence if that would help the Minister to respond to that question.
Baroness Young: I appreciate the point that the noble Lord has raised. I hope that I am able to give an answer, but if I cannot give a full answer I hope he will understand if I write to him later, because I should not want to give an incomplete reply.
Most of the amendments that have been tabled to the discipline clauses would in one way or another place limits on schools in their endeavours to maintain discipline. That is the opposite of what the Bill is intended to do. Its purpose is to give governing bodies and head teachers as much freedom as is reasonably possible to decide on rules of conduct and means of enforcement. In our view, the LEAs' powers should be confined to those needed to carry out their legal obligations to secure the education of all children in their areas. In that context discipline is largely irrelevant to that obligation except in a few circumstances which the Bill identifies. For example, if a pupil is excluded from school, sooner or later, if he is not re-admitted the LEA must act to secure his education—the point which I think the noble Lord was making on the way the law would operate to see that a child must be educated.
It is a different matter altogether for LEAs to tell schools what kind of disciplinary sanctions they may or may not use and some amendments would allow local education authorities to do that. We believe that this would cut across the main principle of the Bill.
On the point raised by the noble Lord about Poundswick School, I appreciate that this has been a cause of considerable concern in the local authority area and, indeed, in the educational world. It would be right for me to say that I will write to the noble Lord concerning that school in relation to the Bill. I shall do so before the next Committee day so that he has plenty of time to consider the matter. I hope the noble Lord will accept that answer at this time.
6.45 p.m.
Baroness Phillips: Before my noble friend Lord McIntosh replies, not for the first time I find myself in the dilemma of having to contradict noble friends on my own Front Bench, or at least debate with them. But perhaps that is one of the privileges that we have in your Lordships' Committee.
I should like to know from my noble friend whether his amendments mean that the local education authority would be the deciding factor in dealing with a child being excluded. I can give chapter and verse on many cases. There is a school of which I was chairman of the governors where one boy stabbed another severely and the stabbed boy nearly died. The headmaster asked me whether he could exclude the first boy and, as chairman, I gave chairman's action.

807
The governors supported us. However, the LEA—I shall not name it—then tried to exert pressure to make the headmaster take back the boy.
I said then, as I have said before and shall say again, that authority balances on delicate pillars. Children know very well that if a person gets away with something—that is the phrase that children use—there is no reason why they cannot get away with it. They look you in the eye and say, "What can you do about it?" I have recently been talking to a young teacher who has since left, and she told me that that is the kind of thing that children say to you these days. I sometimes wonder when I am in your Lordships' House how many schools noble Lords have been in lately. It is all very well to quote from one's childhood but times have moved on a little. I have a sense of unreality about some of the discussions on certain state schools; I cannot speak for public schools.
In the example to which I have referred it was quite wrong for the local education authority to exert pressure for that child to be returned to the same school. That is the kind of situation to which I do not want to be a party; forcing any headmaster or chairman of governors to comply. The head and the governing body must be the sole controllers and arbiters in such a situation. After all, they are on the spot and know the position.
It would be fine if that was an isolated case. Sadly, in London it is not. The boy was to be educated somewhere else but the local education authority wanted him to be educated in the same school. I am happy to say that I won. I had to argue with Members of Parliament, the education authority, the race relations committee, as I recall, and one or two others; but it did not mean that I did not stand my ground. The principle had to be resolved in the interests of every child in the school and certainly in the interests of the teachers, who have a very difficult job.
I am waiting, as I said on a previous occasion, for a Bill to be introduced to abolish corporal punishment by children on teachers—because that is what we see now. There are assaults by children on teachers and I do not think we need to worry so much about the children being assaulted. Everything has changed. Therefore, I can only say that before we go into the Lobbies, which he may ask us to do, I want to know from my noble friend what is the real meaning of these amendments.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I should be grateful, as I am sure would the Committee, to see the letter that the noble Baroness, Lady Young, eventually sends to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. I say this particularly in relation to Poundswick School because many of us have been seriously concerned about what we have read. Many of us want to ensure that children involved in a disciplinary situation of a grievous kind should have some right of appeal. At the same time, having said that I am sure that many of us are seriously concerned about the climate of violence which now exists in a number of schools, not only in Manchester but in other parts of the country. That being so, it seems to me that the issue which has been raised today is of considerable importance. As I say, together with, I am sure, noble Lords in other parts of the
808
Committee, I should be grateful if the noble Baroness would ensure that a copy of her letter is put in the Library.
Baroness Young: I say right away that I shall be happy to send a copy of my letter to the noble Lord, Lord Harris. If I may say so, I think it is a matter of regret that he did not speak in those terms on the preceding amendment.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: If the noble Baroness wants me to re-open the issues raised on the previous amendment, I shall gladly do so. However, I should have thought that, as the noble Lord, Lord Denham, has expressed his disquiet at the amount of time we have been devoting to this Bill, it seems mildly strange that a Minister should invite one to re-open issues on which the Committee has taken a decision. I find that a rather bizarre suggestion.
Lord Monkswell: I must admit to taking a slightly different point of view from the penultimate speaker. In fact, I live in Manchester. My wife teaches there, and she is a member of the union which has been at the forefront of the Poundswick dispute. Unfortunately from the point of view of our own family relationships, she has taken one side and I have taken the other.
Apart from that, one of the problems with which your Lordships are faced is the dilemma that I suspect we can get into if this Bill goes forward unamended, in that on the one hand we shall give the power to the head teachers and the Government to determine whom they shall or shall not teach, but on the other hand there will be a responsibility on the education authority to ensure that everyone is taught. This will raise a great conflict, because the one body will have the responsibility and the other body will have the power.
With regard to the dispute at Poundswick, I do not think that anyone would argue that exclusion of a pupil from a school is not something which should be available in particular circumstances. However, one has to be aware of the background to the situation. As I see it, the local authority was faced with a situation in which there was a fairly significant number of pupils who were regularly being excluded first from one school, then from another school and so on. At some stage that cycle had to be stopped in order to ensure that the responsibility which devolved on the education authority, that every child should have an education, was fulfilled effectively. If there is a child who is being shuffled from one school to another and then to another and another, the education authority is not accepting its responsibilities.
However, I must admit that in the Poundswick situation the whole affair has blown up into a conflict which I suggest is out of all proportion, though I can recognise the strong feelings which are held on both sides. I hope that in quieter circumstances both sides will recognise that everyone is trying to act for the best and will try to find some way forward. Yet at the end of the day the buck must stop somewhere. If half the buck stops in one court and half the buck stops in another, it is a recipe for chaos. I think it is an unfortunate feature of this Bill and, (dare I say it?) one of the problems that we on this side of the Committee

809
are trying to resolve by putting forward the amendments that we have.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am delighted to debate with both the Minister and my own noble friends. It is an experience which she has been undergoing on this Bill more often than I have. Nonetheless, the experience does not disagree with me.
I can assure my noble friend Lady Phillips that the amendments which I am now putting forward refer to the policy on discipline in schools which shall be determined by the head teacher and the general principles by which he has to operate in determining the policy on discipline. The amendments do not deal directly with the issue of exclusion, though it is quite clear that exclusion is one of the disciplinary measures that may be described in a policy. In fact, the Bill contains very detailed measures on exclusion policy, and there is at least one section entirely devoted to this matter.
We are not proposing amendments to the exclusion provisions of the Bill: we are proposing that there should not be disciplinary measures of any kind in one school which are in conflict with the disciplinary policies of another school in the same local authority area. It should be the duty of the local authority to ensure that the disciplinary policies of the different schools under its control are consistent with each other, and to that extent the local education authority should have the power to make requirements about disciplinary policy on the governing bodies and head teachers of the schools in its area. That is the purpose of the amendment, not detailed change to the powers or constraints on exclusion.
I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, for the way in which she responded to my questions. I listened very carefully to her reply and I think it is wise, in the light of her undertaking to write to me before the next meeting of the Committee, that I should not pursue this matter to a vote at this time. I think that your Lordships would wish all debate on this matter to be fully informed and properly thought out before asking the Committee to reach a conclusion. I think the noble Baroness has been very fair in her response and in the offer she has made to write to me, and on that basis I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 57 to 60 not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Wells-Pestell)The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Wells-Pestell): I call Amendment No. 61.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 61:
Page 23, line 5, at the end insert—
("who shall not exclude a pupil from the school on the ground that the pupil has refused to consent to be given corporal punishment, or on the ground that a parent of the pupil has refused to permit him to be given corporal punishment or has otherwise sought to secure that he will not be given corporal punishment at the school;").
The noble Lord said: I do not think I shall move this amendment because I did not speak to it in moving—
The Earl of Swinton: If your Lordships will forgive me, I wonder why Amendment No. 61 has been called before Amendment No. 60A. We have had a discussion about whether we should teach mathematics in schools, but it seems a strange way of proceeding.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Amendment No. 61 appears before Amendment No. 60A in the Marshalled List. That is the answer.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Is the noble Lord moving Amendment No. 61?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: In the Marshalled List which I have, Amendment No. 61 is printed above Amendment No. 60A. That is clearly not right. I think I should defer to the noble Earl.
The Earl of Swinton: I can only say that I think this is one thing produced in the Marshalled List for which the Department of Education and Science is not responsible.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: My information is that the amendments are in the right order even if the numbers seem to be wrong.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I understand that it is correct that I should speak to Amendment No. 61 before Amendment No. 60A. This matter refers to corporal punishment. I did not speak to it in moving Amendment No. 56. I confess to your Lordships that I am not entirely clear whether Amendment No. 61 is an essential part of the argument on corporal punishment, but I shall have an opportunity to return to it at Report stage if I find it is a necessary part of the series of amendments depending upon Amendment No. 56.
[Amendment No. 61 not moved.]
The Earl of Swinton The Earl of Swinton moved Amendment No. 60A:
Page 23, line 5, at end insert—
("ff) for it to be the duty of the head teacher, where he excludes from the school a pupil who is a child or young person, to take (without delay) reasonable steps to inform a parent of the pupil of the period of the exclusion and the reasons for it;").
The noble Earl said: This amendment would place a duty on a head teacher who excluded a pupil under 18 years of age to take reasonable steps to notify the pupil's parent. We consider that this is a sensible requirement to include in this Bill, as your Lordships will no doubt agree, particularly in relation to children under 16, whose parents have a duty to see that they are educated. It also reflects the fact that the primary responsibility for promoting good behaviour in children rests with their parents. I hope that your Lordships will accept this amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: The amendment says "to take (without delay) reasonable steps to inform a parent". May I ask my noble kinsman whether this also includes a guardian? The child or young person might be in foster care or in the care of the local authority or a guardian if the parents are dead or abroad.
The Earl of Swinton: This is covered by the 1944 Act, which defines a parent as including,
"a guardian and every person who has the actual custody of the pupil".
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Briefly (although in this Committee that word seems an introduction to length) we thoroughly support the amendment. We believe that it is a valuable addition to the Bill.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Denham: This seems a convenient moment at which to break for the adjournment. In moving that the House do now resume, may I say that we shall not return to this Bill before 8 o'clock. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Protection of Military Remains Bill
7.1 p.m.
Lord Sandford: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The formal position, I suppose, is that having secured the Floor of the House for the Second Reading of the Bill, we can keep it until we have finished the Second Reading. But the convention is as my noble friend, the Chief Whip, has just described it, namely, that we are expected to vacate the Floor of the Chamber in respect of this Bill in an hour's time. With five speakers, beside myself, I intend, therefore, to leave the explanation of the Bill to the Explanatory Memorandum printed on the face of it and not to say anything about the Bill that can be found there. I assume, also, that Members present and taking part in the debate will have read not only the Explanatory Memorandum but also the Hansard of another place of 31st January, when the Bill was introduced there by my honourable friend Mr. Michael Mates. I adopt this approach for another reason, too. An issue has arisen since the Bill left another place to which most of those whose names appear on the list of speakers will wish to devote a fair amount of time, although we shall need to come back to it in detail at Committee stage.
All that I shall do by way of a preliminary is to remind your Lordships of the background against which this Bill is being discussed. This is a background extending over 30 years in which the development of the technology and of the popularity of sub-aqua amateur diving has increased so enormously that very large numbers of people are well able to dive on shipwrecks some of them no doubt containing human remains where the crews have been entombed. At the same time, there has been a tremendous development of deep-sea diving technology in the course of the commercial exploration for, and exploitation of, oil and gas below the bed of the North Sea. Those are the changes that have occurred in the last 30 years or so and that have made this Bill necessary.
I am concentrating upon shipwrecks and not upon wrecks of aircraft that have crashed on land, although the Bill covers them, because wrecks of aircraft constitute a minor part of the overall concern. These
812
changes in professional diving technologies have put many more shipwrecks within the reach of divers and salvors and have provided scope, on the one hand, for a surgical salvage operation without the necessity to disturb human remains that have been entombed, but, on the other hand, they have also made possible unauthorised intrusions and removal of contents and of fittings that none of us would wish to countenance.
During this period of 30 years, there have been changes in Government policy towards shipwrecks and in the legislation to protect those containing human remains entombed within them. The last occasion prior to this Bill when the Admiralty established a new policy concerning the protection of shipwrecks in which crew members were entombed was 1955. Up to that time, it had been normal practice to sell naval shipwrecks for scrap, whether or not they contained human remains. That was changed at that time. In 1973, following the desecration of the shipwreck of the "Royal Oak" in Scapa Flow by amateur divers, local by-laws were introduced to control that particular activity. They are now enforced by Orkney council. A few years later, concern was expressed about possible threats to the sanctity of the "Prince of Wales" and the "Repulse", which were sunk with heavy loss of life off the Malayan coast. It is important to make the point at this stage that this legislation can do nothing about the protection of our ships in that sort of situation in international waters except through the restraint of British companies. There is no sense in which this legislation can control or restrain the activities of foreign salvage and diving companies outside United Kingdom waters. It would be a great mistake if Parliament allowed any expectation to be raised that this legislation could do that.
In the 1980s, the whole issue was brought very much into the public arena, raising both public concern and public interest, by the authorised salvage of gold from the "Edinburgh" in very deep waters in the Arctic and the unauthorised intrusion into the sanctity of "HMS Hampshire" sunk back in 1916 off the Orkneys. That intrusion by a German consortium could not be restrained by the legislation then available. That is the background and those are the circumstances in which this legislation, fully explained on the face of the Bill, has come into being.
What we now have to concentrate upon, although there may be other aspects with which noble Lords want to deal, is a position that did not seem to me to emerge in another place, but that has emerged since—namely, the position of British companies seeking to dive on and salvage in international waters ships covered by this Bill. The position is that they can be controlled by this legislation but their foreign competitors cannot. We have to take care that this situation does not produce an unfair disadvantage to British firms. My noble friend, in the course of the last few weeks, while negotiations have been going on, has given me two assurances. I shall leave him to set them out in detail. Broadly speaking, however, they amount to an undertaking that there will be a schedule applying to certain named wrecks that will be issued and become effective at the same time as this Act, exempting from the Bill ships listed in it. With that list it will then be possible for the sub-aqua amateurs to

813
dive on them. It will be possible for deep-sea salvage and diving operations to be conducted on them as well, without any danger of prosecution under this Bill.
Linked with the list there are the vessels that sank before 4th August, 1914, except any that are separately designated for protection. That is one assurance that I wanted to set out at the beginning of our debate which I am sure my noble friend will want to confirm and enlarge upon, and correct if I have not got it right, at the end of the debate.
The second and more important point relating to the discussions which we have been having over these past weeks is that my noble friend has given an assurance that general licences will be available in advance for reputable salvage and diving companies which have previously agreed to abide by a code of practice (which has yet to be worked out) authorising them without any further specific licencing to salvage cargo from the majority of vessels covered by this Bill.
I should like to speak briefly on that second point. It is necessary, in my view, to have a general advance licence available for reputable salvage and diving companies in order that British interests shall not be put at a disadvantage when operating over wrecks in international waters. Were that not there any British firm or British ship wishing to engage in a salvage operation in international waters would first have to seek a licence from the Ministry of Defence and will be put at considerable disadvantage in relation to, say, a Japanese, a French or an American company, which could get on to the same wreck and immediately, without further delay and under no constraint at all, start to conduct a salvage operation by whatever means they thought suitable including that of dynamiting the whole thing—as was the normal practice in earlier days. Once again I shall leave it to my noble friend to set out the precise terms in which he is ready to give that assurance.
When we come to the Committee stage we shall need to consider whether there is proper provision in the Bill on which to hang those assurances, because the British salvage companies concerned set a good deal of store by them.
There is one further advantage which flows from what I have just been outlining. I am most grateful to my noble friend for coming forward with it. That is that, given the way in which the British and other international companies co-operate, for example, in the North Sea, where, one has a Norwegian firm hiring a British ship or a Dutch firm hiring a Norwegian ship and operating together, it may well turn out that a willingness to conform with this code of practice and to use the advantages of this general licence may prove attractive to foreign firms as well as to British firms. If that were to happen we should have taken one small step towards an international convention. That is what we need in order that the sanctities of ships such as HMS "Prince of Wales" and HMS "Repulse" is protected in the way that the relatives of survivors would wish to see.
For all those reasons I commend not only this Bill but the assurance which my noble friend has given about the ways in which it will be applied and, if
814
necessary, amended at Committee stage. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.— (Lord Sandford.)
7.15 p.m.
Lord Parry: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, for his presentation of both his own view and of what is essentially the Government's attitude to this Bill. The Bill, rather unusually, in another place on a Friday afternoon went through its First and Second Reading. I was alerted to it by the officers of an organisation known as Seasalv Marine Limited which was using the facilities of the Milford Docks Company. The House will want to know that I am the chairman of that company; and that the chairman of Seasalv Marine Limited, Major General Desmond Smith, is present in the House this evening. All interests have therefore been declared.
We had the privilege of a meeting with the Minister who was ready to meet us as soon as the concerns expressed by us were made known to him. Not only did we go with him through the Bill, but we had present with us the representatives of his department who were responsible for its drafting, one assumes, and who were now seeing it through its various stages in the House.
I want to say at once that I have met no one who does not agree with the basic principle of this Bill which was originally to provide the sanctity about which the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, spoke for the remains of those who had sacrificed themselves in the service of the country or who had been killed at sea. There has never been an attempt on anyone's part to question the basis of the Bill.
However, I think that the Minister may well say—he does not have to—that the way in which that wish cuts across the commercial interests of the British salvage companies that were involved in salvaging all kinds of wrecks and artefacts from under the sea was probably a surprise to him. It became obvious very early that this simple wish to give sanctity and protection to the military remains in wrecked ships and aircraft under the sea was threatening very real and special interests.
Having admitted that we wish to preserve the sanctity of those wrecks, it is absolutely essential that they should be properly identified and placed. I believe that there is evidence that the Admiralty charts are not absolutely certain as to where some of these remains are located. I understand that some are as much as 30 miles out in their assessment. A great deal of research has gone into the history and background, increasingly more effectively with better and better equipment, to place under the sea the exact position of these wrecks which are often said to contain human remains. I am also assured by divers who have been aboard such vessels that it is very unlikely indeed that human remains are to be found in these vessels. But the sanctity of them remains inviolate. There is no question of that.
I therefore ask the Minister—and he has had the privilege of seeing in advance all the points I wish to make in the House—whether he plans a total survey or a collation of the information that is available from commercial sources under commercial rates of the

815
exact position of these wrecks so that he is more aware of them than his department seems to be at the moment. That is no reflection on the department. I also ask the Minister, when he comes to speak, whether he will give us the detail of the exact type of ship that is to be covered and the exact type of remains. We acknowledge that our conversations with him were immensely valuable to us. Can he tell us whether Her Majesty's Government will carry out such a survey and whether they will identify for us where these positions are so that we can ensure maximum control by Her Majesty's Government of any investigations and salvage operations that occur within British international waters.
Here I agree totally with the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, that the Bill can be enforced only within British territorial waters. If Her Majesty's Government are to have maximum control during salvage operations, along with other interested parties such as the survivors' societies which the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, has mentioned in passing, it is essential that such a survey should be promised and eventually carried out.
Although the Bill was put forward with the best of intentions, it was in danger of going badly wrong until the interests affected came to the Ministry. This often happens. It is no criticism of those who drafted it. It was carefully drafted so as to identify the problem, but, curiously enough, the Bill made no reference to human remains; it made reference to military remains but none to the sanctity of human remains. That clearly is odd.
People may wish to go down with the equipment available, as the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, said; it is available even to lads off the beach and certainly to unscrupulous salvors. This has been dramatically illustrated in a television programme recently. I saw, and I am sure other Members of the House saw, pictures of South African divers using pneumatic drills on the wreck of HMS "Birkenhead" to recover the gold being carried as a payroll for the troops.
If there is a wreck that should be sanctified, it is the wreck of that ship in which 500 British soldiers stood to attention to establish the now famous law, women and children first, so that the women and children could escape while they surrendered their lives. Yet this vessel in international waters, as the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, indicated, has been plundered. I do not know whether there is any doubt about that. I see some doubt, but the noble Lord will have the right of reply. I am sorry. It is in South African waters. It is national, rather than international.
Salvage operations are carried out for financial gain. That is their purpose. They are carried out by a few British firms. I believe basically there are three major firms, and I am willing to be taught that there are others that have an interest in the field.
An interesting way of protecting these sites has been put to me. The House will know better than I did that there used to be a position of government salvor. A nominated company went out on behalf of the government to salvage those things which the government wished to salvage. It may be that this cuts across the general licensing that the Minister intends to bring in, and I am grateful to him for having told me
816
in advance when we met today that he intends in his speech, as he has told the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, to say that he is prepared to agree to such a general licensing system. However, it could be of advantage to the Government to create this position of government official salvor and to offer it for competition among the interested British companies, so that British companies employing British divers could dive on British vessels and reclaim anything of value for Her Majesty's Government; and they could be paid a commercial fee to do that.
If there is vast bullion or whatever at the bottom of the sea in these wrecks and there is a danger that people can go aboard them and disturb the sanctity of those graves—because it does not matter whether the graves are empty of bodies, graves they are—it would be of use if a licensed, and specifically licensed, British company were to do that in British ships, within British waters and in national and international waters elsewhere if that could be arranged, and to do it by modern methods. This would mean that those ships could be entered without the use of explosives, without a desecration of the graves, and in the spirit of a British nation honouring British dead and at the same time recovering for the British purse money which fell out of it during the war in operations at sea.
There is a great deal of money, I am told, on the bottom of the sea. It is not for me from this side of the House to teach the Government how they should do something for their own Exchequer, but I understand that monetarists everywhere are interested in recouping money. The British marine heritage has ensured that possibly as much as 90 per cent. of the vessels that Her Majesty's Government would wish to protect will be outside United Kingdom territorial waters, and therefore available to anybody to work. Will the Minister assure me, perhaps even before the Committee stage, that salvage companies and the Government will talk together to ensure that the Bill takes account of all these points that I have made?
We met informally, but would it not be far better if the salvage companies were seen to be working with the Government and with those of us who in this House at any rate talk with the Government? Any unscrupulous British salvage company that wished to go after this money and ignore the basic principle of the legislation could move the basis of its operations to Switzerland or elsewhere. I should not be surprised if the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, were to concentrate on the international waters in his submissions.
I have taken 10 minutes, and the noble Lord took nine. The clock has now clicked up 11 and we still have 40 to go, so I am sure that there is plenty of time for us to do adequate duty to the Bill.
7.26 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I welcome this Bill. There are one or two things which need saying. First, oil has fallen in value from 30 dollars a barrel to 10 dollars a barrel, or thereabouts. This has immediately released onto the international market vast amounts of surplus diving capacity. The North Sea oil companies are cutting back on the use of their diving facilities.
I should like to point out to the noble Lord, Lord Parry, that the "Birkenhead" is in South African

817
territorial waters, and is not covered by the Bill anyway; so this makes life very difficult. I do not know whether your Lordships are aware how the system works, but you become something called a salvor in possession, which means you have to anchor your boat over the top of the wreck and then start working on it. In those circumstances, under international law nobody is allowed to come and interfere with the work.
If Her Majesty's Government issue a blanket licence, they have, to all intents and purposes, taken out international waters from the Bill except for this position: a British captain employed by a Singapore-based salvage company which has not bothered to apply under the Government's scheme for a blanket licence. The British captain is ordered by the Singapore company to go and salve the "Prince of Wales" or the "Repulse". Has that man then to resign his position and lose his job? What happens?
It is a serious problem. Either the blanket licence is made so loose that it has really no bearing or no effect, or it is made sufficiently tight so that it becomes very difficult for certain people to act, and it becomes against some parts of British interest. I believe that the "Trinidad", which was a sister ship to the "Edinburgh", also sank in Arctic waters; but she is in international waters. At the moment the technique exists to salve her.
It is worthwhile pointing out that there is something called GLORIA. That is not my noble friend on the Front Bench. It means geodetic, long-range inclined asdic. What that can do is to pick up very small nodules from the sea bed. It can go down to great depths. Incidentally, it is a British invention, and J. Marr and Co. use it on a trawler and are mapping a great chunk of the United States exclusive economic zone. The techniques are now so sophisticated that in my view the only way forward is to see whether we can get a binding international convention to stop the cowboys. Everybody would want to do that. Grave robbers—only they are now called archaeologists—are sometimes given knighthoods.
What we should like to do is to change from the methods of Belzoni, who used to dynamite and blow up Egyptian monuments to get at the inside, and come to the scientific and sensitive methods of dealing with graves at sea.
I do not think that there is anything more for me to say on this matter. I think I have covered the points I want to cover. All one hopes is that Her Majesty's Government will be their normal, intelligent, sensitive selves, listening to the arguments that we have put forward with patience and restraint.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, "Normal, sensitive souls" is a description at which I boggle. I hope that this evening we shall indicate to the Minister that there is a great deal of good will and appreciation for the fact that, although Private Member's Bills are not entirely the gift of an individual, to make progress they need to have government departments and Ministers, such as the one here tonight, with sympathy and understanding for the purposes of the Bill.
818
First, I want to say how much I appreciate the careful and helpful explanation of the raison d'étre of the Bill that we had from the noble Lord, Lord Sandford. He pointed out how the Bill came to us. Having been in another place I smiled at the galloping speed with which the Bill went through all its stages in another place on a Friday afternoon. I was what was called the Friday Whip, and have had a little more experience of Friday procedure. I did not say to myself, "I know there is something wrong", but I knew that it was an extraordinary procedure which was clearly called into account. Although we have the benefit of what happened there, we are starting completely afresh. What we do here will produce a modified Bill—I am anticipating some amendments—which will go to another place, and they will deal with it there.
Those speaking at Second Reading (and perhaps there are others) show that the Committee will be well served. The noble Lord, Lord Parry, in a frank declaration of interests, not only did the proper thing but indicated that he has access to the experience of other people. He has experience himself and can hying other people's experience to the Committee. I know that the Minister and his advisers will welcome the fact that people at the sharp end of any legislation can see snags that even with experience the Government may not be able to perceive.
The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, knows what he is talking about. He indicated that simply and quickly. He convinced me, even though he may not have convinced the Minister, that he knows what he is talking about. I shall rely heavily upon the advice that he brings to the Comittee stage so that we can see that we get it as near right as possible.
The purposes of the Bill are simple, compelling and humane. We have already seen that it is not a Bill of one dimension. There are other interests. I am sure that when the public hear about the Bill, through the media of television, radio and the press, they will appreciate what the promoter is attempting to do. At the same time they will want to ensure that other interests are not badly affected. The Bill seeks to make it an offence to interfere with the remains of crashed, sunken and stranded military aircraft and vessels without authority. That phrase "without authority" is very important. The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, said that we might be moving towards some form of binding international convention—a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Sandford. It is sad that in a situation which can be fraught with so much distress and grief an individual cannnot feel that there is not some legislation to form a framework upon which the Government can attempt to impose some authority and restriction. The main purpose of the Bill is to protect the sanctity of wrecks that contain human remains.
Another purpose of the Bill is to give sanctity to the graves of members of the armed forces whose remains are not interred in Commonwealth War Graves cemeteries or national cemeteries, but are located at the site of a crashed aircraft or shipwreck. Those are first-class credentials for the House wanting to pass the legislation as quickly as possible. As we know from our experience, it is far better to do it correctly than to do it quickly. We have the opportunity and possibility

819
with the Minister and his advisers, who will listen with care and sympathy and with those outside the House, to get it right. If we do not get it right the first time, there will be others in another place who will be happy to assist us.
The noble Lord, Lord Sandford, said that in recent years we have needed protection of this kind, and that reason is well based. The interests of aircraft archaeology and the searchings by groups and individuals may be for fun, sport or excavation—I have nothing against any of those, for it is not cheap; they are spending their money to get enjoyment, thrill and satisfaction—but we need to consider two or three matters, not least their safety and perhaps damage and distress to others.
Those of us who served in the last war, as I did in the Royal Marines, will know that the relations of former comrades will have assumed that the bodies of their nearest and dearest have been left undisturbed somewhere. They will want to make sure, if it is within the remit of a piece of legislation, that we are doing the right thing by their memories.
Not only are we concerned for the relatives, but we know that there are a great number of members of ex-service organisations who are not relatives but who are entitled, rightly, to be concerned. I was glad to read, possibly in the Hansard of another place, that the Bill has the general support of the Royal Air Force Association, the Royal British Legion, the Soldiers', Sailors' and Airmen's families Association, the RAF Benevolent Fund and War Widows of Great Britain. That is a piece of information that is well founded, and the organisations appreciate what this Bill is trying to do.
However, I think the Minister anticipates one of the main burdens of concern, even at this early stage. While it is perhaps within the gift of Government to exercise authority and control within British waters, a problem arises in international waters and from what appears to be an inhibition as regards British companies and British interests which seem to be less well served than their international competitors. It is in this field that we want the Minister to say something. He may be able to respond as he will appreciate this matter, but if he can not answer he will be faced with amendments in this place and possibly in another place which will help him to face up to it. None of us wants to act to the detriment of the companies which have invested large sums of money, or of the seamen, whose jobs are involved. We do not want to find that in properly trying to protect the military remains, as they are called, we are doing damage to existing businesses and companies.
The Opposition welcome the intention of the legislation, which is not just a framework but a deterrent. We are attempting to frighten off people who may feel that they do not need a licence, in both senses of the word, to do what they want to do. We want those who have lost their loved ones and those who care for them to know that we are concerned to protect them. I was deeply moved by the illustration given by my noble friend Lord Parry. As he said quite fairly, salvage is about money and those who do not pay attention to the other matters could cause an outrage and an outcry which would not do them or
820
their businesses any good. The Government will have to tell us whether in fact some of the fears and worries are true.
In another place, my honourable friend Dr. Godman, who is the Member for Greenock, raised the question of whether the interests of British fishermen, who sometimes are specially concerned with the kind of fishing that takes place in areas of sunken wrecks, would be involved; whether there was anything in the view that, by virtue of carrying out their craft and their trade, they would be running foul of some of the legislation. In another place, the Minister gave a categorical assurance that there was no intention, no words in the Bill, which would affect them in that way.
In effect, we are starting from scratch in this House, and although we know what has happened in another place it is not part of the record. I should like the Minister to confirm what was said in the other place on that point. I also like the suggestion of my noble friend Lord Parry about consulting on the widest possible front. There cannot be many organisations that have a direct interest in this matter.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, there is a danger about too much consulting. The salvage world is an extremely cut-throat one. If you do too much of that kind of thing, you side-track the competition with the research that somebody else is doing and you can give away commercial secrets. There is a difficulty about that.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I appreciate that. We are not in the business of procrastinating or delaying; we are in the business of getting this piece of legislation on the statute book during the current Session. If there were a choice between the long and wrangled way of getting it though, I am simply saying that there are some short interests that I hope the Minister will take into account. I have no more to say except that quiet clearly we are going to be interested in the Committee stage to seek to improve the Bill, and as more than one noble Lord has said perhaps the Minister has something to say to us that will reassure those outside. On this Bill, for my part, I rely very heavily upon the expertise of those who have already spoken and interests outside who may yet approach me. We certainly fully support the Motion that this Bill be given a Second Reading.
7.42 p.m.
The Minister of State for Defence Support (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, perhaps I may say at the outset that the Government warmly welcome this Bill which has been so ably introduced by my noble friend Lord Sandford—none better than he, if I may say so, to take this matter under his wing. Not only is he an ordained member of the Church of England, he also had a distinguished career in the Royal Navy including one occasion, I understand, where his ship was mined. The Bill deals with a problem which in recent years has aroused strong feelings not only in this House but also among the general public. The desecration of the graves of sailors who went down with their ships and airmen who crashed with their aircraft has been a matter of real public concern ever since the Second World War.

821
This led the Admiralty in 1955 to review its policy on the disposal of its wrecks. It decided that wrecks known to contain human remains should be left undisturbed unless there were special circumstances. These special circumstances came to be defined as cases where there was a danger to navigation, or the presence of explosives; where there was a strong risk of unauthorised access which might be reduced by a controlled salvage operation to remove attractive items; and where reputable groups wanted to undertake valuable historical research. The Admiralty was prepared to allow some access to war graves in these circumstances, but only if it was satisfied that the remains of those who died in them would be treated with due respect.
The policy for crashed aircraft has also been that human remains should not be disturbed. This policy was endorsed in 1981 by representatives of aircraft archaeology groups and organisations such as the War Widows' Association. I am sure your Lordships will understand the distress that is felt by people when they discover that the remains of their relatives have been unearthed. Some of course are pleased to know exactly where their relatives fell, but since we can seldom be absolutely certain of the identity of the remains, the Government feel that on balance it is much better that the sites are left undisturbed. If an aircraft containing human remains is unearthed, however, then of course we ensure that the remains are given a proper burial.
Most of those who are interested in the wrecks of military aircraft and vessels, for pleasure or profit, are willing to be guided by this policy. But, there are a few who pursue their interest or business with little respect for the dead or regard for the feelings of others. Their activities have been the cause of public and parliamentary concern, and the department's inability to protect its war graves has been much criticised.
There have been a number of recent instances of problems in this area. My noble friend recited several recent incidents. It was the last incident to which my noble friend referred, that of the unauthorised salvage of items from HMS "Edinburgh" by a German consortium, which really drew attention to the fact that the Government had been almost powerless to prevent the desecration of these graves. As a matter of fact, I was in the Ministry of Defence at that time. It was I who was consulted as to whether access should be allowed. I decided that it should not but even my decision went disregarded.
The Government welcome this Bill as a means of remedying this weakness. At the same time, we have no wish to see the activities of responsible individuals and groups who have a legitimate interest in the remains of military vessels and aircraft unnecessarily hindered. Aviation archaeology groups will normally be able to obtain a licence to excavate a crashed aircraft site which does not contain human remains or unexploded ordnance. We know that the majority of groups respect the desire to leave untouched crashed aircraft sites in these circumstances.
Moreover, I hope we have been able to reassure sub-aqua clubs that, in general, it is not an offence under the Bill to dive down to and swim round any military wreck. It would only be an offence to interfere with it in some way. Diving may be restricted in the
822
vicinity of a small number of wrecks where there are particularly strong reasons for protection: these we would designate as controlled sites. This would be broadly similar to the restrictions already applied under harbour byelaws to the wrecks of Her Majesty's ships in the Orkney Harbour areas. But, for the vast majority of military wrecks, the Bill as it stands would place no restrictions whatsoever on divers who want to look but not touch.
Your Lordships may be interested to know that we intend in Committee to propose the removal of the offence of "boarding" in Clause 2(2)(b) of the Bill. In this context, it is worth mentioning that it is not, after all, an offence to stand on a formal grave. The Government are also considering whether it is possible to define the offence of "entering" more clearly. We would certainly wish to deter people from meddling inside an aircraft or vessel which contains the bodies of its crew, but not to prevent a diver from simply standing amid the scattered wreckage of a vessel on the seabed.
We have also been looking closely at Clause 1, which applies the Bill to certain types of aircraft and vessels. The Bill automatically protects all aircraft and vessels in these categories. This approach, rather than the specific designation of individual aircraft and vessels for protection, was adopted mainly because we do not know the present location of many of the aircraft that we would wish to protect. These are the British and foreign aircraft that crashed somewhere in this country in World War 2 and whose wreckage has still to be discovered.
There is a similar problem with vessels that sank in the two world wars. The noble Lord, Lord Parry, referred to this. But automatic protection for military vessels itself creates certain problems. The clause, as presently drafted, does not define the category of vessel in a way that can readily be applied in individual cases. The Government will therefore be suggesting an amendment at Committtee stage which will require all vessels to be individually designated for protection. A further amendment would deal with the problem of vessels in unknown locations. These amendments would remove any uncertainty about the identity of the vessels covered by the Bill. I am sure that this approach will be particularly welcomed by salvage companies and sub-aqua clubs.
Some of your Lordships have expressed the concern felt by some salvage companies that the Bill would place British companies at a severe disadvantage in relation to their foreign competitors in international waters. I say "some of your Lordships"; but I think that it was each and every one of your Lordships. This would only happen, I believe, in those exceptional cases where a company discovered a wreck unexpectedly and needed to take possession immediately. In most cases, it should be possible to seek a licence under the Bill well in advance of any operation. Nevertheless, if a protected vessel contains cargo worth recovering, the Government would obviously prefer it to be recovered by a reputable company that would take care not to disturb any human remains, rather than to leave it to attract the attention and possibly not-so-tender mercies of some other enterprise.

823
To meet these concerns, I can give an assurance that the Government will be prepared to grant a licence to reputable companies which will enable them in an emergency to remove cargo from a protected vessel without committing an offence. The licence would contain strict conditions and a clearly defined code of practice designed to minimuse any disturbance of human remains. If the company failed to honour those conditions the licence would be withdrawn. Such a licence will, I hope, meet the legitimate concerns of reputable salvage companies and also help to guarantee that the vessels concerned will thereafter be left in peace.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, would the Minister give way? I am most grateful. Prima facie, this sounds like an important and significant statement. Could the Minister tell us whether the operation of the procedure he has outlined has been discussed, even informally, with some of those who are involved in the business? They have said that in their view this would meet the position.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, yes, indeed it has been discussed—by me in fact—with at least one of the companies concerned. Also, perhaps more importantly, it has been discussed with the trade association: the Association of Offshore Diving Contractors, as I think they are called.
Perhaps I may turn now to some of the points that have been raised during the course of our discussions. The noble Lord, Lord Parry, asked a number of questions. He asked, first, whether the protection under the Bill would be limited to White Ensign vessels, to British vessels. The answer to that is, no. The main purpose of the Bill is to protect the last resting-place of servicemen who went down with their aircraft and vessels; and they of course include support vessels such as Royal Fleet Auxiliaries and merchant vessels taken over for military purposes.
The noble Lord also asked whether licences for salvage operations would be issued to British companies only, or, rather, I am not sure whether he actually asked that specifically, but I know that is a matter which has been in his mind. I do not think it would be possible to confine the issue of licences to British companies alone, because almost certainly that would be contrary to our obligations in respect of the European Community. Nor would it be desirable, I think, because of course the purpose of the procedure is to ensure orderly entry (if that is what is required) of the wrecks of ships and aircraft, and therefore it may be better to issue a licence when one is sought and the necessary undertakings are given.
Some reference was also made to whether the Bill had not been rather rushed through another place. I can assure your Lordships that there was no premeditated intention to do that. However, the Bill did enjoy a wide measure of support in the other place and I dare say that is why it got through so quickly and easily—something which perhaps your Lordships will wish to take note of (or perhaps not!).
The noble Lord, Lord Parry, also asked whether we should resurrect the position of the government salvor. It is the case that during and after the Second
824
World War the Government contracted a number of private salvage companies to undertake a large amount of salvage work which was necessary at that time. The Government do not see a need at the moment to enter into a general contractual relationship with one or more private companies, but of course I cannot predict what our future requirements in this area might be. I am not sure, in any event, that the term "government salvor" was ever an official one, but I believe it did come into common usage.
I believe I have covered all the main points which have been raised tonight in the course of this debate, but I shall be happy to deal with others either by correspondence or at a later stage, if that is thought helpful. There is no doubt that the main thrust of this Bill has widespread public support. Existing legislation does not adequately protect the remains of those who died in the service of their country and the Government believe strongly that this Bill meets a real need in a sensible way. At the same time, as I have indicated, we are prepared to do what is necessary in order to ensure that there will be the minimum interference with the activities of responsible divers, archaeologists and others.
Her Majesty's Government fully support the principle of this Bill and I invite your Lordships to do likewise, so that effective action may in future be taken against the minority who offend public sensitivities by their wanton disregard for the sanctity of war graves.
7.55 p.m.
Lord Sandford: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, and particularly to my noble friend for his contribution and the assurances he gave towards the end of his speech about his willingness to join with us in making sure that, in legislating for the sanctity of those ships in which many of the crew lie entombed, we do not put the British interests of the salvage companies, the divers and others at a disadvantage in international waters. That is a matter we shall need to return to at Committee stage: meanwhile, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
Viscount Long: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8 o'clock.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The sitting was suspended from 7.56 p.m. to 8 p.m.]

Education Bill [H.L.]
8 p.m.
House again in Committee on Clause 20.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 62:
Page 23, line 15, at end insert—
("(1A) For the purposes of subsection (1) above measures shall not include the giving of corporal punishment and where in any civil or criminal proceedings it is shown that corporal punishment

825
has been given to a pupil by or on the authority of a member of the staff, giving the punishment cannot be justified on the ground that it was done in pursuance of a right exercisable by the member of the staff by virtue of his position as such.
(1B) References in subsection (1A) above to the giving of corporal punishment are references to doing anything for the purpose of punishing the pupil which, apart from any justification, would constitute battery.
(1C) In subsection (1A) above "member of the staff' means any teacher who works at a school where education is provided for the pupil and any other person who has lawful control or charge of the pupil and works at such a place.").
The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Swinton The Earl of Swinton moved Amendment No. 62A:
Page 23, line 18, leave out ("in any case").
The noble Earl said: If I may, I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 62A and 62B. These are purely drafting amendments. The words covered by Amendment No. 62A are unnecessary. As regards Amendment No. 62B, one of the intentions of Clause 20 is that, if a head teacher excludes a pupil for more than three school days in aggregate in any one term or if the exclusion would prevent him from taking a public examination, the governing body or the LEA can direct the head to reinstate the pupil at once.
Subsection (3) deals separately with aided and special agreement schools because of their ultimate right to exclude pupils permanently, but, as worded, it applies to all exclusions, not just those that exceed the three-day limit or interfere with examinations. The amendment will bring aided and special agreement schools into line with other maintained schools, subject to the preservation of their existing power to expel pupils.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Hayter): I must point out that if Amendment No. 62B which was spoken to by the noble Earl is carried I cannot call Amendment No. 63.
The Lord Bishop of Ely: I appreciate and support the Government in saying that it is unacceptable to subject a pupil to a continued temporary exclusion, which is the point of the amendment. My colleagues on the General Synod Board of Education and the Catholic Education Council have been concerned about the position of the governors of aided schools if the local authority is to be given the power to give directions to the head teacher in the way proposed in the Bill. The head teacher of an aided school is, after all, the employee of the governors and governors of an aided school have traditionally been responsible for admissions to and, by extension, exclusions from their schools.
My difficulty is that the amendment does not meet our concern on that point. The clause gives that new power to the local authority and we feel that we should have to resist that along the lines perhaps of an amendment tabled by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London next in the Marshalled List.
We believe that there must be anterior consultation with the governing body on that point. Surely that would be only prudent. I wondered whether an assurance can be given by the noble Earl that that
826
point will be looked at. If it could be accepted and a way of implementing it brought forward, I should be ready not to press for the raising later in Committee of the substance of Amendment No. 63.
The Earl of Swinton: The amendment is not intended to address the Church's concern as expressed in Amendments Nos. 63, 64 and 65. We have a great deal of sympathy with the concerns expressed by the right reverend Prelate in those amendments. We are considering whether it is possible to go some way towards meeting them without undermining the ultimate responsibility of LEAs to secure the education of children in their areas.
I appreciate the right reverend Prelate's concern that if the amendment is agreed to, which I hope it will be, he cannot move his amendment. Having offered him the consideration that even if he does not move the amendment tonight we shall see what we can do and whether we can come forward later with a suitable amendment to take account of the Church's concern, I wonder whether he will be prepared to agree to the Government's amendment going ahead tonight.
The Lord Bishop of Ely: I am grateful for that assurance. I was anxious to secure the possibility of that consideration. I accept that understanding.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Swinton The Earl of Swinton moved Amendment No. 62B:
Page 24, line 4, leave out from beginning to ("by") in line 10 and insert—
("where he has excluded a pupil from the school—

(i) for more than three school days (in the aggregate) in any one term; or

(ii) in circumstances in which the pupil would, as a result of his exclusion from the school, lose an opportunity to take any public examination;

to comply with any direction for the immediate reinstatement of the pupil given by the governing body or, where the pupil has been excluded otherwise than permanently,").
The noble Earl said: I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 63, 64 and 65 not moved.]
Clause 20, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Kilmarnock Lord Kilmarnock moved Amendment No. 66:
After Clause 20, insert the following new clause:
("Appeals concerning exclusion from school on disciplinary grounds.
.—(1) Every local education authority shall make arrangements for enabling the parent of a registered pupil at any county, controlled or maintained special school for which they are responsible to appeal against exclusion from the school on disciplinary grounds.
(2) The governors of every aided or special agreement school shall make arrangements for enabling the parent of a registered pupil at the school to appeal against exclusion from the school on disciplinary grounds.
(3) Joint arrangements may be made under subsection (2) above by the governors of two or more aided or special agreement schools.
(4) Any appeal by virtue of this section shall be to an appeal committee constituted in accordance with paragraph 1 of Part I of Schedule 2 to the Education Act 1980.
(5) Part II of that Schedule shall have effect in relation to the procedure on any such appeal but with the following modification—paragraph 7 (matters to be taken into account by appeal committee) shall have effect as if for paragraphs (a) and
(b) there were substituted "any representations made by the appellant".
(6) An appeal committee hearing an appeal by virtue of this section may either

(a) order that the exclusion shall cease forthwith, or

(b) inform the local education authority that it does not consider reinstatement appropriate, giving its reasons in writing.

(7) The decision of an appeal committee on any such appeal shall be binding on the head teacher.").
The noble Lord said: We have talked a good deal this evening about exclusions and whether the head teacher and the governing body should be the sole arbiters or whether the local education authority should have the last say in the case of exclusion. I hasten to say that this amendment does not touch on those aspects of exclusion of pupils from school; it stems from a concern that I expressed on Second Reading about the inadequacy, as it stands, of Clause 21 which will have to go if my amendment is accepted.
Clause 21 as written merely allows parents the right to appeal against the exclusion of a child where the articles of government provide for an appeals procedure. But there is no requirement for the articles to incorporate any such mechanism. It seemed and seems to me extraordinary that so fundamental a matter should be left purely to local whim, and so I turned to the Notes on Clauses which the Government have kindly made available to ensure that I had understood Clause 21 aright.
My reading of the meaning of the clause was immediately confirmed. It says:
"It is not a requirement that articles of government provide for particular forms of parental appeal against their child's exclusion from school".
From that it appears that appeal procedures could vary from school to school or indeed there could be no appeal procedure at all in some schools. That surely offends against any interpretation of the principle of natural justice.
In Scotland, where they often order such things better than south of the Border, under the Education (Scotland) Act 1981 parents and, in the case of pupils over the age of 16, pupils have a right of appeal against exclusion from school. That is accomplished simply by providing that the same appeals committee as exists to hear appeals on placements under Sections 28C, 28E and 28F shall also hear appeals against exclusions under Section 28H. That is to say, the same committee performs both functions. Fortunately, the English Education Act 1980 provides the perfect legislative framework for us to do exactly the same thing in a very simple way, and that is what this amendment sets out to do.
Section 7 of the 1980 Act sets up an appeal procedure on admissions to schools when children are not admitted to the school of their choice and the appeals committee is constituted in accordance with Part I of Schedule 2 to that Act. What is proposed in this amendment, since the machinery already exists, is that an appeals committee should be constituted in an identical way to hear appeals on exclusions.
The 1980 Act machinery has already been extended once to take on board appeals under the 1981 Education Act against LEA proposals to meet "special educational needs", so there is no reason why the same
828
procedure should not take on an additional responsibility, or why English and Welsh parents should not enjoy the same rights as Scottish parents already have. Indeed, it would probably be sensible to have a multi-purpose appeals committee on the lines of the Scottish Act.
I am concerned in this amendment not so much with the mechanism, important as that is, as with the principle. If the Government prefer a different procedure or perhaps a better form of words, I shall welcome their advice or indeed their expertise in preparing an amendment of their own for the next stage of the Bill. But what I cannot accept is that the Bill is left as it stands. However much we believe in devolution of decisions that ought to be taken locally—as I certainly do—it is not good enough to allow a matter of this importance affecting a child's whole future to be decided in a way that can vary widely up and down the country.
The obligations of the boards of governors under this Bill are laid down in some detail throughout the Bill. For example, Clause 20 requires them to do or provide all sorts of things in relation to discipline. It therefore cannot be argued that it is unjustifiable interference with the governors' autonomy to require their articles of government to incorporate an appeals mechanism. I do not seek in any way to take a particular view or stance on exclusions or reinstatements, but seek simply to provide a right of appeal and an equitable appeals procedure which ensures equal treatment for all appeals.
I should like to remind the noble Baroness that her colleague, the noble Earl, has already been kind to me on one of my earlier amendments on the election of parent governors and has offered to bring forward his own amendment at the Report stage of the Bill. So I very much hope she will be inspired by his example on that previous amendment and make me a similar offer this evening. I think the noble Baroness and the noble Earl will agree that my amendments are always fair and reasonable. I beg to move.
8.15 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: I regret to inform the noble Lord that the inspiration which I sought from my noble friend has not been forthcoming. Therefore I must reply by saying that Part III of the Bill does not seek to be exhaustive on the prescription of functions, but rather provides a framework around which good practice can evolve. The noble Lord himself said, if I remember correctly, that it is not the mechanism but the practice that he seeks to underline. Some local education authorities may decide, as now, to provide through articles of government for appeals procedures against exclusions. That would be entirely reasonable and indeed Clause 21 anticipates such action.
We do not believe, however, that there is any single system appropriate to all authorities and some may decide that other ways of building on the legal framework suit them better in their particular locality. Some may, for example, prefer to rely on conciliation involving parents, or to build on consultative procedures which are already well developed in their areas. The choice should in our view be left to local education authorities, although we have in mind, in our post-Act circular to authorities, giving

829
detailed advice on practical issues and this will certainly be one of the areas to be covered. I hope that, with that assurance, the noble Lord will feel prepared to withdraw his amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Baroness's reply puzzles me. I wonder whether she is speaking to the right amendment, because the new clause proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, is a replacement of Clause 21. It confirms the position in the Bill that in county, controlled and maintained special schools there shall be a right of appeal against exclusion, and it makes new provision for such an appeal to exist for the parents in aided and special agreement schools.
The noble Baroness said that this was a matter on which the Government choose not to be too precise and to leave local option. As I understand it, the local authority has to make arrangements in all of its county, controlled and maintained special schools for an appeal procedure. All the noble Lord is proposing is that it should be extended to aided and special agreement schools. I do not see how he is doing anything more prescriptive or restrictive than is already provided. He is simply saying: if it is right for one lot of parents it is right for all lots of parents, and the arguments used by the noble Baroness are not, with all due respect, really appropriate to the amendment being moved.
Baroness Hooper: The Government do not see the need to impose a particular system on all local education authorities. The noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, argued that appeal procedures could vary from school to school. That is a theoretical possibility. But if the position is to be set by articles of government, and those will be made in a particular local education authority area, then that authority can be expected to adopt a uniform approach for all the schools in that area.
Lord Kilmarnock: I, too, am puzzled by the noble Baroness's reply. I always appreciate her clarity, her exposition and the charm of her delivery, but I feel that the Government's position here is extraordinarily weak. I am not striving to move against the freedom of governing bodies to take the decisions that it is appropriate for them to take and that the Bill wants them to take. But I find it very difficult to understand how it can be argued that you can have some schools in the country where there should be an appeals procedure laid down in the articles of government, which might vary from one set of articles to another set of articles. Indeed, there is nothing in the Bill which prescribes that there needs to be any appeals procedure at all and that, on my reading of Clause 21, is purely optional.
I am entirely in favour of allowing many flowers to flourish where that is appropriate, but surely we do not, for example, have different criminal law in different parts of the country and this is a matter which can affect the whole of a child's life. It may be right to exclude that child or it may be wrong to exclude that child. I am not seeking to make any judgment on that point. I am simply seeking to obtain from the Government an arrangement whereby there will be an equal right to appeal in all types of school and an
830
equally just appeals procedure in all types of school up and down the country. I simply cannot understand the Government's objection. It is not interfering with local autonomy or devolution. It is simply a matter of implementing a basic human right.
The Government have laid down a great many other duties for governing bodies in the Bill. They have to do all sorts of things about discipline, about the curriculum and so on and so forth. When a perfectly good mechanism exists under the 1980 Act I cannot understand why on earth they should not lay this small further obligation on governing bodies in the interests of natural justice.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I support the noble Lord on this point. The whole thrust of the Bill, as we have been told on many occasions, is to extend the democratic government of our schools system to a wider body of people. The particular mechanism chosen by the Government to do that is the governing body. The governing body has increased powers and a wider membership to include elected parents and elected teachers and other co-opted members.
Surely it is not only a possible but a necessary extension of that democracy to say that individual parents—not just elected parents—who are personally concerned with the discipline of the school in the sense that their own child has been excluded should have the right of appeal. I cannot see how this is in any way in conflict with the objectives of the Government in the way in which the Bill has been prepared and the case for the Bill has been argued. I urge the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, not to withdraw the amendment, because it is a matter not of confidence in the Government but of common sense urging that this appeal procedure should be available.
Lord Tordoff: Perhaps I may reinforce this point. This is not a question of local option but of natural justice. That should apply evenly across the piece. I hesitate to enter into this debate because I have not really been following the Bill in any detail. My noble friend Lord Ritchie of Dundee has had to leave but I am sure that, were he here, he would be saying precisely the same thing. I repeat that it is not a question of local option but of natural justice, which should go across the country as a whole. I wonder whether the noble Baroness will reconsider her position.
Baroness Hooper: I shall consider most carefully what both noble Lords have said. It seems to me that the issue is whether or not there should be an appeals procedure. The Government, while agreeing that there should be an appeals procedure, concluded that it should not be mandatory. Bearing in mind the points that have been made, I will take it away and consider it carefully.
Lord Kilmarnock: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, for his support. In view of what the noble Baroness has just said, I do not think it would be right for me to press the amendment at this stage because I think that possibly a gleam of light is now I entering into the Government's thinking on the matter. We may hope that they will come forward and

831
help us at a later stage. I am also grateful for the support of my noble friend Lord Tordoff. As he said, I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, would have been with me too.
It is a question of natural justice and not of interfering with local rights. I urge the noble Baroness and the noble Earl to think about this very carefully and to see whether they cannot come foward with something for the next stage of the Bill. I shall be most happy to meet with them and discuss any proposals they have, which may indeed be better than mine. I am obviously not wedded to my wording and they may have a better idea. But I think we must introduce the principle of natural justice into the appeals procedure. That is all I am asking. In view of what the noble Baroness has said, I shall at this stage withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 66A not moved.]
Clause 21 agreed to.
Clause 22 agreed to.
Clause 23 [Finance]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 67:
Page 25, line 39, after ("how") insert ("all or").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is again very much in line with the thinking of the Government, and ought not to cause them a great deal of difficulty. The proposal made in the amendment is that where there is devolution of funding to governing bodies—that is proposed in subsection (b)—there should be the possibility (it is not demanded) that all the funds allocated to the school should be available to the governing body to use at its discretion. The Bill is quite precise on this. This is to include,
"books, equipment, stationery and such other heads of expenditure".
This is not purely a theoretical matter. There is experience of experiments by local education authorities to extend the degree of autonomy in financial matters to the governing bodies and the headmasters and staff in their schools rather than having everything laid down by the education office. A particular example of this is Cambridgeshire. A number of noble Lords will have had correspondence from those responsible for the experiment in Cambridgeshire, which has been going for some time. The proposal is now before the education committee that the experimental proposal—the pilot scheme—shall be extended to other schools in the area. I do not express a view on whether that is right or wrong; that is a matter for the Cambridgeshire Education Committee. This is an area in which local option is appropriate and where the education authority must carry out its own negotiations with the governing bodies and the headmasters and staffs of the schools. Provided that the devolution of financing is restricted to the items which are set out in the Bill—books, equipment, stationery and so on—it is right that the Bill should provide for local authorities to experiment as they wish. It should not insist on it; it should not be compulsory. That is why we say,
"all or a proportion of the funds".
832
But it should be possible for local authorities to go for wider devolution if that is what they think appropriate.
I should like to make one thing clear, however, in case the amendment is not clear in that respect. It would not be our view that staffing funds should be devolved to the governing bodies. There should be no possibility of vying between staffing and other heads of expenditure. That applies not only to permanent staff but also to supply teaching staff. It should not be possible to cut down on supply teaching in order to pay for more books, equipment or stationery. Given that proviso—and I do not believe that the amendment particularly encourages staffing funds to be devolved to the governing bodies—I think that the amendment, which is permissive rather than prescriptive, ought to commend itself to the Government. I hope that they will be able to respond favourably to it. I beg to move.
8.30 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: The noble Lord has said that the intention of the amendment is to ensure that money may be spent how they wish. That is the reason why the word "how" appears in the original clause. Therefore there is really very little, if anything, between us on this; and indeed the spirit of the noble Lord's amendment is already implicit in the clause. Therefore, the clause as it stands places absolutely no limit on the proportion of funds which local education authorities may place in the hands of their governing bodies, so it could mean "all".
We also admire the success of Cambridge, but if we were to accept the wording of the noble Lord it could be invidious: it would put pressure on authorities favouring a cautious approach to act faster than circumstances suggested. Yet the experience of existing schemes which began modestly, using pilot schools and building on experience, and indeed the advice of the Audit Commission, is that the path to success lies through evolution, not revolution. It would fail to recognise—which the clause, as drafted, is careful to do—that local education authorities must retain ultimate responsibility for the management of all their resources if they are to carry out their duty to maintain schools and to remain accountable both to electorate and to auditors.
What may have been misunderstood is that the majority of authorities operate no schemes of financial devolvement and the clause is therefore already ambitious in its requirement that local education authorities should begin such schemes even to a minimum degree. To put them under pressure to do too much too quickly could risk shipwreck.
Finally, there arises the question of definition. Who is to say what is meant by "all"? Are we talking about all resources for the maintenance of schools, all payroll costs? This could make no sense when many of the maintanence problems we see in schools may have their roots in an authority's failure to have an overall picture of its building stock and planned policies for its regular maintenance, instead of a piecemeal reaction to crisis and when falling school rolls and the rationalisation of school premises require authorities more than ever to have flexible management policies for all staff.

833
As I said at the outset, there is really nothing between us, and if the noble Lord's ambition is to ensure that money is spent how they wish, which is the phrase that he used, I therefore ask the Commmittee to reject this amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I was very encouraged by the first part of what the noble Baroness said. She has certainly convinced me that 100 per cent. could be interpreted as being a proportion of the funds, and I would have been very happy to leave it at that. But she then went on to say that there was something dangerous about the approach and that all of the funds allocated to the school would somehow bring with it all sorts of difficulties about payroll and so on. If that is the case, then the objection applies to the Bill without the amendment, because if 100 per cent. is a proportion then 100 per cent. is all. The objections apply whether or not the amendment is carried.
I do not think that the noble Baroness needed to use quite the degree of overkill that she did in opposing this amendment. On the basis of the Government's assurance that a proportion may be a proportion of 100 per cent., I am happy to agree with her that the amendment is unnecessary even though it is certainly not dangerous. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 23 agreed to.
Clause 24 [Governors' annual report to parents]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 68:
Page 26, line 38, after ("name") insert ("and address").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment again is to go along with the thinking of the Government in relation to the reports and meetings of governing bodies, but simply to improve in a very modest way the access of those most concerned—the parents—to the governing body and to the members of the governing body.
What is proposed in line 38 is that the governors' report shall contain not only the name of each governor and whether he is a parent, teacher or foundation governor, but also the address of the governor. This is not a revolutionary amendment. After all, all elected members of local authorities have their addresses published, even before they are elected, on the notice of poll; and after they have been elected it is expected that they will make their addresses available to members of the public—to their electorate. Even if that is not easy for their electorate to get hold of, it is always easy to reach the elected representative on a local authority by writing to the town hall. This is not an intrusion on the privacy of the elected members of a local authority. It is a necessary concomitant of being elected. You make yourself available to the people who elected you. There is no equivalent of the town hall in quite the same sense so far as concerns school governing bodies. It seems logical to us that the address of the governors should also be available to parents, or to any other recipients of the governors' report, so that if there are any questions which arise it is possible for the people
834
concerned—the electorate in this case—to make contact with the governor they wish to speak to. It is a natural obligation, in our view, which goes with being elected. We think that it is in line with the Government's thinking and hope that the Government will feel able to accept the amendment.
Lord Mottistone: In this day and age, surely most, if not all, of the governors' names would be in the telephone book.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: No.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: If that were the case, then there certainly cannot be any objection other than pure parsimony to publishing the address in an accessible form. But if it is not the case, and if they are not in the telephone book—it is not just that people do not have telephones, an increasing number of people are actually excluding their names from the telephone directory for reasons of self preservation—then it is appropriate that they should be as accessible as those who are in the telephone directory.
The Earl of Swinton: Of course, I sympathise with the intention behind this amendment of making governors more accessible. It is, however, important to bear in mind while considering this amendment, the structure of the clause and its interaction with Clause 25, concerning the parents' annual meeting. This clause sets out certain minimum requirements as to the contents of the governors' annual report. Subsection (2)(c) requires the governors to be identified by name, and (2)(f) requires the name and address of the chairman and clerk to be given.
I would say to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, that the nearest thing to the town hall in this case is surely the address of the clerk to the governors; and failing the clerk to the governors, the chairman of the governors. This will guarantee that the governing body can be contacted direct. This provides a ready means of contacting other governors, and certainly of finding out the addresses of the other governors. It may well be of course that the other governors will add to the minimum requirement in Clause 24 to give their addresses. In fact, the Government will encourage them in this. They did not, however, feel able to go to the point of requiring these other addresses to be published. It should be noted that by virtue of subsection (4) the report is to be sent not only to all parents, but also available for inspection at the school by others. Some people—may I dare suggest not least some may be parliamentarians—are understandably jealous of their privacy, and this should be respected.
To come to the question of telephoning, I know how difficult it is at times during the recess to contact Peers by the telephone when I find how many are ex-directory. I mentioned the interaction with the provisions of Clause 25 concerning the annual parents' meeting. That adds a large degree of self-regulation to those important clauses designed to involve parents more closely in the work of their children's schools.
If parents do not like the governors' report that they are offered, they will say so, and the governors will need to consider those representations. If parents consider that they ought to have the addresses of the

835
governors, I am sure that they will make that very much known. At many turns the Government have been asked to allow for more flexibility in the Bill's provisions. This clause contains just such flexibility which, with the self-regulation that I have described, makes the amendment unnecessary. I ask the noble Lord to withdraw it.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am always susceptible to suggestions that an amendment might be unnecessary. I bridle more when I am told that it is dangerous.
The Earl of Swinton: I did not say that it was dangerous.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I was not suggesting that the noble Earl used that word in this instance. In this case I am less than convinced, I am bound to say, by the noble Earl's arguments. To have to approach a governor through the clerk to the governing body or through the school is an additional complication which will, to that extent, make governors less accessible to the electorate, whereas the opportunity to write directly to governors is a facility that ought to be made available to the electorate.
The Earl of Swinton: I was not suggesting that a parent should have to contact the governors through the clerk. I was suggesting that the clerk would know the addresses of the governors, so that if a parent really wanted to know their addresses, it would not be all that difficult to obtain them.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The effect is the same. If a parent who wanted to contact a governor had to go to the clerk to the governors to obtain the address, that would in effect be going through the clerk to the governors. There is no direct contact. There is at least the reforwarding to take place.
Thinking again about the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, I am not necessarily keen that the telephone numbers of governors should be made available to the electorate. Having been an elected member of a local authority for a number of years and having always had my telephone. number in the phone book and in the directory of the local authority, I have been less than pleased by the times at which some members of the public and of the electorate have chosen to make telephone calls on matters that seemed important to them.
Therefore, the right to phone elected representatives at all hours of the day or night is not one that I would advocate. However, the right to write to people directly and not via the clerk to the governing body is reasonable and I am sorry that the Government feel unable to accede to that modest addition. However, in view of the hour and of the fact that it is not a matter of major importance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 69:
Page 27, line 31, at end insert—
("(c) in Wales require them to produce it in Welsh as well as in English where the school is a designated Welsh medium or
836
naturally Welsh school or being generally an English medium school has a Welsh medium unit attached thereto and forming part thereof.").
The noble Lord said: The Committee will recognise this as one of a series of amendments that will be moved in my name but upon which the real expert is my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies. I put these amendments forward with confidence, having been convinced by the arguments that he presented on the previous amendments. Amendment No. 69 proposes that the report of the governing body, where that is in Wales, should be in Welsh,
"where the school is a designated Welsh medium or naturally Welsh school",
or where there is a Welsh medium unit as part of an English medium school.
That seems to us to be in line with a good deal of Government thinking about the preservation and encouragement of the Welsh language where those living in Wales prefer to use it. It has formed a part of local government legislation in Wales for some time. There is nothing remarkable about it in that sense. Relying also on the expert support of my noble friends, I commend the amendment to the Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Prys-Davies: I am grateful to my noble friend for moving Amendment No. 69. What I have to say to that amendment can be applied also to Amendment No. 77. The Welsh Language Act 1967 recognised the principle of the equal validity of the Welsh language with the English language in the law courts and in the conduct of public or official business in the Principality. Both amendments apply the principle of the 1967 Act in relation to both the governors' report and the proceedings at the annual parents' meeting.
8.45 p.m.
Both amendments are justified on the grounds of demand, principle and common sense. I should explain that Welsh is the first language of a significant number of parents whose children attend Welsh language schools. Indeed, it is probably the first language of the overwhelming majority of their teachers. It therefore seems only right that there should be a statutory duty for the governors' report on a Welsh language school to be made available in bilingual form. It also seems only right that a person attending the annual meeting should be entitled to speak in Welsh should he so desire. So that there may be no uncertainty about that duty and that right, we ask that they should be spelt out in the Bill. Indeed, we believe that they will strengthen the Bill, because those provisions will cultivate and encourage wider participation.
Baroness Young: The purpose of this amendment is to require local education authorities to include in the articles of government for Welsh medium schools and schools with Welsh units a requirement that the governors' report to parents shall be published in Welsh as well as in English.
I find it difficult to accept the presumption in the amendment that local education authorities in Wales

837
will seek to discriminate against the Welsh language and those whose mother tongue it is. The Government would be most reluctant to impose upon local education authorities a duty that, as reasonable and responsible public bodies, they would seek to undertake of their own volition.
Moreover, Clause 24(3)(b) already requires that the annual report to parents shall be published in a language or languages additional to English as the local education authority may direct. Successive governments have deliberately avoided introducing any element of compulsion into their policies for encouraging the development of the Welsh language and this Government have no intention of adopting a different line.
I add that all the necessary powers are there to publish the annual report in Welsh. The local education authority can even require that in the articles if it thinks fit. However, the Government do not feel it would be appropriate to require that to be done by national statute.
I remind the noble Lord of the role of the annual parents' meeting if there are not the opportunities provided to use the Welsh language and to have the annual report published in Welsh. I do not feel that there is any difference in principle between that which the noble Lord has said and that which is in the Bill. I hope that, in the light of that explanation, he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Prys-Davies: That is a disappointing response from the Government. Indeed, it could be argued that the time has come in Wales to introduce the language not merely into the curriculum but also to the government of the school. Unless it plays a role in the government of the school it will be seen to have an inferior status; and that would militate against the declared policies of the Government to enhance and strengthen the status of the language.
It appeared to us that the principles contained in this amendment and the subsequent amendment are consistent with the philosophy of the Government and the philosophy of this part of the Bill; namely, that one should encourage participation by the parents and that the parents in Wales who send their children to Welsh schools should have the statutory right to have the report in bilingual form and to use the Welsh language at the general meeting. Therefore, it appears to us that many people will be disappointed and will question the commitment of the Government to their support of the Welsh language. For my part, we will have to take this back and study the words of the Minister. However, my response is one of disappointment and I believe that many other people in the Principality will be equally disappointed.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I share my noble friend's disappointment. Indeed, I am puzzled by the attitude of the noble Baroness on this matter. It is, after all, an established principle that the publications of a local authority and the proceedings of a local authority in Wales, where there are Welsh language speakers, must also be available in Welsh. I may be wrong.
Lord Prys-Davies: The authority here is available in the 1967 Act, but in this case we wish to see the principle enshrined in the Act applied to the circumstances of the report and the general meetings of the parents.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I cannot help thinking that the draftsman just forgot about the Welsh language in this respect and that the resistance to this amendment is purely formal, in order to protect the parliamentary draftsman, rather than the result of deep thought. It seems to me that in practical terms the Government are inviting difficulty not so much in this Committee—although the strength of the Welsh language on these Benches is well known, from my noble friend Lord Cledwyn downwards—but particularly in another place.
I am sure that Welsh members on the Standing Committee in another place on this Bill will be particularly displeased at the idea that the Welsh language should not be treated, as far as the proceedings and publications of governing bodes are concerned, in the same way as the Welsh language is treated under the 1967 Act in other parts of public life in Wales. I should have thought that it would cost the Government nothing to agree to this amendment and would save them a great deal of trouble later on.
As I said, I find it surprising that on this matter the noble Baroness should be so inflexible. As my noble friend has indicated, it will be necessary for us to consider what she has said and decide whether this amendment, or another form of it, should be put down in another place.
Baroness Young: Perhaps I can make one further comment that may help the noble Lord in his consideration of the matter. Parents in Welsh schools can have their report in Welsh. If they want it in Welsh they have only to ask for it at a parents' meeting. To say that they can have it is different to introducing by statute that it must be available.
Some of the remarks that have been made in the discussion on this amendment have taken the debate beyond the annual report and in that instance it would not be right to introduce a statutory requirement in the Bill to one part of the Welsh language. I think I am right in saying that the noble Lord discussed this matter with the Secretary of State for Wales about a year ago and he will know and understand the view of my right honourable friend over the use of the Welsh language. I am sure the noble Lord will recall that meeting. I am trying to be helpful by indicating how we think the Bill will work in practice.
Lord Tordoff: I hesitate to intervene, but the Welshness of these Benches, going back some years, is also well known. It seems to me that the last part of this amendment is the most valid part. I understand what the noble Baroness is saying in terms of parents being able to insist on the Welsh language being used in such cases. However, where a school is generally an English medium school but has a Welsh medium unit attached to it, the Welsh will be in a minority. In that case they may not be able to exert parental pressure to

839
have the report produced in Welsh. In those cases it would seem to be proper to entrench the rights of Welsh parents.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am grateful for what the noble Baroness said because I think it leads the way to a compromise that might be acceptable to all parties. I agree that one could conceive of a situation where it would be undesirable to insist on a copy of the report in Welsh simply because there is a part of the school that uses the Welsh medium. However, the noble Baroness suggested that it might be possible to say that if any parent or parents ask for the governor's annual report to be in Welsh then it should be required for it to be provided. That seems to me to be a useful halfway house. It is not in the Bill as drafted, but an amendment on those lines could well be prepared which would presumably meet with the approval of the Government since it would be made at the suggestion of the noble Baroness. On the understanding that we shall come back on that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 24 agreed to.
Clause 25 [Annual parents' meeting]:
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Amendments Nos. 70 and 69A are in the correct order on the Marshalled List. I call Amendment No. 70. If this is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 69A.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 70:
Page 28, line 1, leave out ("Subject to subsection (7) below").
The noble Lord said: I am grateful to our Chairman for relieving me of some possibility of confusion on the numbering. This is the second time that amendments on the Marshalled List have been in the correct order but appeared not to be in the correct order.
With the permission of the Committee, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 79. That inevitably leads me to speak, I think, to Amendment No. 79A in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Swinton. Although this grouping has not been agreed through the usual channels, I think it might be sensible for us to deal with Amendments Nos. 70, 69A and 79A at the same time. I say that because in Amendment No. 79A the Government propose a replacement of subsection (7) with an improvement which makes it possible to have annual parents' meetings in special schools and in boarding schools. That certainly was the intention of our amendment.
The existing provisions for annual parents' meetings—and I shall speak about the annual nature of parents' meetings in relation to later amendments—is that they should apply to only those schools which are county, voluntary, and maintained special schools which are not largely boarding schools or special schools established in hospitals. This matter was referred to at Second Reading and when discussing the composition of governing bodies earlier in Committee.
9 p.m.
It is the experience of a number of local education authorities that it is possible to elect parents as governors to boarding schools and special schools in hospitals. It is possible, even though the parents may come from different parts of the country, to use the fact that they come to visit their children at the school, and in that way they sometimes have an even more effective way of meeting each other and learning about each other's capabilities and needs than may be the case in some day schools. It is for that reason that we propose to delete subsection (7), which says that the provisions on annual parents' meetings do not apply to boarding schools or special schools in hospitals.
The Government are now proposing in Amendment No. 79A that there is a presupposition that there shall be such meetings in special schools and in boarding schools—I hope I am not summarising too brutally and that I am understanding correctly the intention of the Government—but that it shall be possible for these schools not to have annual meetings in a particular year when the governing body decides that it would be impracticable. This is certainly an improvement on the existing situation. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, who has a personal, family interest in a local education authority boarding school, if he were present would agree with me that it is not as bad as subsection (7) as it is at present drafted. But I do not see why, if it has been shown that annual parents' meetings are possible in such schools, there should be the possibility of such meetings being ruled out on the basis that the governing body is of the opinion that it would be impracticable.
It seems that this is an invitation for a governing body which is not particularly responsive to the opinions or reactions of parents—and with the best will in the world that could happen in some schools of this kind—to protect itself from the scrutiny of an annual parents' meeting and to decide, without giving any particularly good reasons for it because there are no reasons required, that it does not want to hold a meeting, and therefore to declare that it would be impracticable. I do not believe that we should give that opportunity to governing bodies. I think it should be stronger than a presumption: it should be a requirement that parents' meetings should be held.
It is difficult to imagine how there could be such a school without some sort of parents' open day in the course of the school year. If that is the case, then surely a parents' meeting can be combined with it and the very laudable intentions of the Government in ensuring that there are parents' meetings and that there is an opportunity to report back to parents as a whole should apply to boarding and special schools as well as to day schools under the local authority's care. I beg to move.
The Earl of Swinton: In responding to the noble Lord, perhaps I may follow his excellent example and also speak to the Government's own two amendments, Nos. 69A and 79A.
In our discussion of Clause 5, we dealt with the obvious difficulties that some hospital and residential schools would have in organising meaningful elections

841
among parent bodies which were subject to rapid turnover or were very widespread, or both. These difficulties are yet greater in respect of the annual parents' meeting. At least an election can be held by postal ballot.
The effect of the noble Lord's amendment would be to require all schools, regardless of their circumstances, to hold annual parents' meetings. For the reasons that I have indicated, this could not be regarded as sensible or appropriate.
As drafted, the scheme of the clause is that only schools which have fewer than 50 per cent. boarders or which are not hospital schools are under a duty to hold an annual parents' meeting. However, in the case of a residential or hospital school, it is intended that the governing body should have the discretion to hold an annual parent's meeting if it thinks that this is appropriate. We must remember that the LEA will be in a minority on the governing body, so the decision will genuinely be the governing body's own.
On reflection, it seemed to the Government that this discretion was not clearly enough articulated in this clause and that in particular it would have been doubtful whether the costs of such a discretionary meeting would have qualified under the provisions of paragraph 3 of Schedule 3 as maintenance expenses of the school to be borne by the LEA. Our amendments now make the position clear. The governing body of a hospital school or a school where at least 50 per cent. of the pupils are boarders would be under a clear duty to hold an annual meeting unless it considered this impracticable.
The noble Lord suggested that it could be a sort of "Bolshie" governing body and decide that it did not want a meeting—or perhaps I am putting words in his mouth—but I think that this would be extremely unlikely. I have myself served on the governing body of a boarding school and of a hospital school and we were very conscious not only of the children in our care but also of their parents. I should have thought it would only have been if the circumstances were such that it really was impracticable, and some boarding schools do take parents from an enormous number of miles around them and they might not be able to do it. I think it would be an excellent idea for it to be combined with an open day, if that was felt to be the right way to proceed. I would hope that if a governing body were really awkward and refused point blank because they did not want the school to have a parents' meeting, a substantial number of protests from parents about the lack of an annual meeting would be rendered to the governing body, which would reconsider its decision and would at the very least bear the representations in mind when considering the matter again in subsequent years.
If parents felt that the governors' decision was unreasonable, or if they felt that holding a meeting would be practicable and that the governors would be in breach of a statutory duty if they did not hold one, they could always complain to the Secretary of State, who could then investigate the question under Sections 68 or 99 of the 1944 Act and, if appropriate, issue a direction to the governing body if he upheld the parents' complaint.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, may consider that that is a long and formal way to proceed. I would, however, suggest to him—I see him nodding, so I am perhaps taking the words out of his mouth—that it would be a very unusual position where the governing body said that it did not want the parents to have an annual meeting and therefore would not allow one. In those rare conditions—I can hardly visualise them happening—a complicated and legal procedure such as I have described would be the right way to go about it. Against that background, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment and to support the amendments in my name, Amendments Nos. 69A and 79A.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Earl in the course of one speech, is not only taking words out of my mouth; he is putting words into my mouth. I am certain that no governing body of which the noble Earl is a member would be, as he puts it, "Bolshie"—it is not a word that I ever use—but he recognises, as I do, that there might be governing bodies, even elected governing bodies, or even governing bodies without a local education authority majority, that would find it more cosy not to report back on an annual basis, with all the additional work and attendance that might be required.
I must confess to the Committee that I do not find the noble Earl's argument convincing. It is not a great deal further from the Government's intentions proposed in Government Amendment No. 79A to say that it should happen. I believe that it could happen. I cannot conceive, to use the noble Earl's word, of cases where there can be genuine reasons for not holding an annual parents' meeting. I hope that if I withdraw the amendment, the noble Earl will feel, on reflection, that the complicated appeals procedure that he has described is not one that is available to other than a small minority of particularly determined and well-informed parents. A much simpler solution is to see that the meetings take place. However, the difference between us is probably not sufficient to justify seeking the opinion of the Committee. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Swinton The Earl of Swinton moved Amendment No. 69A.
Page 28, line 1, leave out ("subsection (7)") and insert ("subsections (7) and (7A)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn Lord Taylor of Blackburn moved Amendment No. 71.
Page 28, line 4, after ("meeting") insert ("at least").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is an attempt to help the Government. The Government are, I believe, somewhat stuck on the issue. Taking into account what they have said about giving back to governing bodies as much freedom as possible to decide upon their annual meeting or other meetings, I am sure that they will readily agree that we should cross out the word "annual" and allow the Bill to go ahead in the way that we propose in the amendment. A governing body would then be able to have one, two or three meetings a year, if it so desired. It may

843
nominate one as an annual meeting. In moving this amendment, I draw attention to the fact that there are other amendments that must follow if it is carried. I beg to move.
Baroness Hooper: This clause provides a minimum requirement that is common to other organisations, associations and companies—the requirement to hold an annual general meeting to carry out certain statutory requirements. In this case, the annual parents' meeting would be needed for the purposes of Clause 25 to consider the governors' annual report under Clause 24. The Government are not opposed in principle to the idea that a governing body should hold more than one meeting for parents in a year. We feel, however, that this amendment has the potential to impose, perhaps unwittingly, too open-ended a commitment on the local education authority. As already stated in relation to the previous amendment, Schedule 3, paragraph 3, provides that expenses deriving from the annual parents' meeting are to be reckoned as part of the cost of maintaining the school and thus are borne by the local education authority.
We accept the suggestion that governing bodies should be permitted to hold more than one parents' meeting a year provided that the local education authority agrees. We consider that this is already possible under the provisions of the Bill. Clause 25 requires that the articles of government for a school should make provision for an annual parents' meeting but this does not preclude the articles from including provision for more frequent meetings. As the local education authority would be making the articles of government, it must be assumed that if it proposed such a provision it would also be content to bear the cost. As the effect of his amendment is not ruled out under the Bill's provisions I therefore hope that the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: I am not happy about withdrawing this, but of course I have to at this stage. I was not looking at the cost because in most schools there will be very little cost involved in the annual meetings. There might be some cost involved for one or two in doing it this way. We were trying to be helpful, and to provide this freedom. I am quite sincere in saying that. If one is talking about freedom of this kind please give schools the opportunity to carry it out in this way.
I can think of many schools which will welcome this opportunity. The cost will be so small. I shall leave it at that and see whether we come back at Committee stage. I doubt it, but we shall see.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 72 not moved.]
9.15 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 73:
Page 28, line 6, after ("all") insert ("registered pupils and").
The noble Lord said: This amendment comes spatchcocked into the middle of a series of amendments by my noble friend Lord Taylor. However, it is on a quite different subject. It is not
844
relating to the timing of annual parents' meetings but to the possibility of having the registered pupils at the school entitled to come to the parents' meetings.
I am sure that many members of the Committee have been to the non-statutory parents' meetings which are held in good schools. These meetings very often have the registered pupils at the school in the audience if not actually taking part. It is valuable for them to be with their parents at the meetings if possible, not only because in some cases the elder pupils may be interested in the subject matter, may wish to hear the discussion and may have something to contribute to it, but also because many parents may not have access to suitable child-minding facilities. They may want to take the pupils with them as part of a family evening out. I cannot imagine that it would be very enjoyable for the younger children. But those of us who have been to parents' meetings know that this happens and that there are occasions when it is necessary and adds to the effectiveness of the meeting and the ability of a significant number of people to attend.
It is true that the subsection as drafted provides for "such other persons as the governing body may invite". It is open to a governing body to say, "Come along to the annual parents' meeting on such-and-such a date and bring your children with you if you would like to, or if it is necessary for them to come." But it is not a requirement. I think that it is important that we should provide every opportunity for as many parents as possible to attend the meeting. We should also recognise the interest, particularly of senior pupils, in the activities of the governing body in the annual meeting to which the governing body reports back.
I hope that the Government will feel that this is a constructive rather than a critical amendment and that they will feel able to accept it. I beg to move.
Baroness Young: The effect of this amendment would be to require the annual parents' meeting to be open to all registered pupils at the school. I am not sure that this could be appropriate. The annual meeting will be an important forum for parents and will provide an opportunity for them to voice their concerns in relation to the school. We have already debated earlier in the Committee stage the amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, on the inappropriateness of pupils being mandatorily involved in all the work of the governing body.
One of the main purposes of the annual parents' meeting is to discuss the governing body's, the LEA's, and head teacher's discharge of their responsibilities. The Committee has already agreed that there are a number of the governing body's functions in which it would be inappropriate for pupils to be involved; and at the same time it must be true of the LEA's functions and even more so of the head teacher's. However, as I am sure the noble Lord understands, the clause as drafted does not debar pupils from the annual parents' meeting. That is a point which he made himself. This I think would cover the kind of case to which he referred of a younger child, as it were going along with the parents because the child could not be left alone at home.

845
The governors hold the meeting; therefore clearly they have the right to attend. Subsection (1) specifically provides for the parents of registered pupils and for the head teacher—who may have chosen not to be a governor—also to be entitled to attend. However, in this subsection the governing body may invite others, and if they wished to extend an invitation to pupils—perhaps senior pupils or members of the school council—they would be quite free to do so. If the parents felt that pupils were improperly excluded, they could register their view at the annual meeting and have the matter settled to their satisfaction.
I note that the amendment does not put any minimum age limit on the pupils who are entitled to attend. I am sure that the noble Lord would agree that pupils at an infants' school are unlikely to benefit very much from attending such a meeting. Additionally, as my noble friend Lord Renton pointed out in the debate on pupil governors, there could be problems with special schools for the mentally handicapped.
Given the flexibility properly in the hands of the governing body as the convenors of the annual meeting, I think that this amendment is unnecessary, and it is inappropriate as it stands. I hope that with the explanation I have given and with the flexibility
846
inherent in the clause, that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I would be slightly more sympathetic to that reply if the Government had not been so implacable in their opposition to pupil governors, because it is possible, if the governing body not having any pupils on it does not wish to encourage senior pupils or the school council—and I find both those suggestions helpful—then it can do so, and therefore can impoverish the annual meeting at which the governors report.
The noble Baroness, in the way she responded, has made the case for an amendment of this sort—perhaps not in the form I proposed—rather more effectively than I did. I had not thought particularly about the role of the school council, and the thought that they might have something to contribute and something to learn from a meeting of that kind. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for suggesting it and I shall think about what she said in considering what to do at Report stage. In the light of those considerations, I think that it would be appropriate if I sought leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 74 and 75 not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 76:
Page 28, line 40, leave out from ("it") to end of line 41.
The noble Lord said: This is an amendment which ought to be dear to the Government's heart. It proposes a reduction in the obligations of a head teacher, in bureaucracy and the passing of paper and in the formality of reporting. In listening to the Government's response to earlier amendments, I had the impression that that was something about which they felt strongly. They felt that local option, as they put it, is a more effective way of running things in governing bodies and in schools than prescription on the face of a Bill. The amendment provides that a report from a head teacher and from a local authority on a resolution sent to him, or them, by the governing body need not necessarily be, but could be, in writing and need not necessarily be provided in writing for inclusion in the next governors' report.
I recall a debate that we had on Tuesday in which the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, and the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, read out from a so-called militant document what were supposed to be ways for members of the Militant Tendency to obstruct meetings of governing bodies. One sure way of helping anyone who had such an idea—and I say this without in any way conceding the genuineness of the document from which they were reading—is to pass enormous numbers of resolutions and insist on them being replied to in writing by the head teacher or the local education authority at the next meeting for inclusion in the next governors' report.
I hesitate to suggest things which disrupters might care to make use of, but it seems to me that the Government have left this possibility open. It would be more realistic for the LEA and the head teachers to report back and the governors should be able to demand a subsequent report in writing if they are not satisfied. But to require a comment to be in writing as a general rule, when a number of resolutions will be requiring things which can readily be agreed to and which do not need comment in writing, seems to be realistic and very much in line with the Government's liberal view of the obligations of head teachers and local education authorities. I hope on that basis the amendment will commend itself to the Government. I beg to move.
Baroness Young: I understand that the purpose of this amendment is to allow the local education authority or the head teacher flexibility in their response to resolutions passed by parents at their annual meeting. It would allow the LEA or the head teacher to report back orally to the governing body. To meet its duty under Clause 24(2)(b)(iii), the governing body would then need to summarise the response in its next annual report to parents.
We are not sure that this would be a desirable amendment as it seems to confuse action with reporting on that action. We recognise that there may well be occasions when the LEA or the head teacher will want to discuss their response to a resolution with the governing body before formally committing it to
848
paper; but there is nothing in the clause as it stands to prevent their doing so. There will normally be nearly a year between the annual parents' meeting and the next governors' report, so there should also be plenty of time for any such discussion to take place.
We feel also that the amendment could give the impression that LEAs and head teachers do not have to give serious consideration to resolutions if they are allowed to report orally rather than commit their response to paper. We consider the annual parents' meeting to be an important provision enabling all parents to have some say in the running of their children's schools. Empowering parents to pass formal resolutions at such meetings which, as appropriate, the governing body, the LEA or the head teacher is obliged to consider, is a significant measure ensuring that parents' views expressed in the form of a resolution have to be considered seriously and given a reasoned response. I do not think that many of your Lordships would dissent from that view.
It therefore seems to us entirely appropriate that the formal consideration of a resolution should include the drafting of a short, reasoned response for inclusion in the next governors' report. I should have thought that those responsible for responding to the resolution would also want to put that response in their own words: in some cases it would hardly be fair to the governing body to put the onus of drafting the response on to their shoulders.
In the light of these comments, and on the understanding that discussion of a proposed response before its formal, written submission is not ruled out, I hope the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am sure that the noble Baroness is right in saying that the important thing is that action should be taken as a result of the resolutions passed at annual meetings. I welcome what she said about the power of parents' annual meetings to pass resolutions of this kind and to have them taken seriously. I was urging perhaps a more practical and less formal way of responding. But I look hack and see the phrase "brief comment on it" is included in the Bill, and on a number of resolutions the comment might be no longer than "agreed action on 17th April 1986". That would fulfil the obligations, as I understand it, of the subsection and would probably be a perfectly satisfactory solution to the problem.
I tend to agree on reflection that my amendment is not necessary, which means that I am not threatening to bring it back at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.30 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 77:
Page 28, line 41, at end insert—
("( ) in Wales for a parent, teacher or governor to be entitled to address the annual parents' meeting of a Welsh medium or naturally Welsh school in Welsh and for it to be the duty of the local education authority to make provision for interpretation accordingly.").
The noble Lord said: We are back in Wales with Amendment No. 77. Instead of the report of the governing body being available to those to whom it has to be by statute in Welsh as well as in English, what is now proposed in this amendment is that a,
"parent, teacher or governor [shall be] entitled to address the annual parents meeting".
in Welsh where it is appropriate and that the local education authority should,
"make provision for interpretation accordingly".
I believe that I can do no better, in the light of our discussion on the preceding amendment, than to leave it to my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies to flesh out the reasons for this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Prys-Davies: I support this amendment, but I spoke to it when I spoke to the earlier one.
Baroness Young: As the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, has just said, in dealing with Amendment No. 69 I set out the Government's policy in respect of the use of the Welsh language; that is, that it is best protected and developed by consent rather than by compulsion. This amendment which seeks to impose a statutory right to conduct business in the Welsh language is going against that policy. That said, we have every sympathy with the aspirations of those who seek to protect the Welsh language and we understand how closely it is linked to the Welsh culture and heritage. I think that our record of financial support for the language—that is, over £1.4 million in this financial year—speaks for itself.
Subsection (4)(a) of Clause 25 provides for the proceedings of the annual parents' meeting to be under the control of the school governing body. It will therefore be for them to decide the language in which the proceedings of the meeting are to be conducted. In practice, however, it is unlikely that all parents will understand Welsh. In those circumstances, it would be counter-productive if contributions were to be made in Welsh. With that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am grateful to the noble Baroness. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 78 and 79 not moved.]
The Earl of Swinton The Earl of Swinton moved Amendment No. 79A:
Page 29, line 8, leave out subsection (7) and insert—
("(7) The articles of government for every special school established in a hospital shall provide that where the governing body are of the opinion that it would be impracticable to hold an annual parents' meeting in a particular school year they may refrain from holding such a meeting in that year.
(7A) The articles of government for every county, voluntary and maintained special school (other than a special school established in a hospital), the proportion of registered pupils at which is, or is likely to be, at least fifty per cent., shall provide that where—
850

(a) the governing body are of the opinion that it would be impracticable to hold an annual parents' meeting in a particular school year; and

(b) at least fifty per cent. of the registered pupils at the school are boarders at the time when the governing body form that opinion;

they may refrain from holding such a meeting in that year.")
The noble Earl said: I spoke to this with Amendment No. 70. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 25, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 26 [Reports by governing body and head teachers]:
The Lord Bishop of Ely The Lord Bishop of Ely moved Amendment No. 80:
Page 29, line 23, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
("(b) for the head teacher to furnish to the local education authority or (in the case of aided schools) governing body such reports in connection with the discharge of his functions as the authority or governing body (as the case may be) may so require.")
The right reverend Prelate said: The amendment stands first in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London. This is more a matter of clarity of wording and, to that end, I move it with once more the position of governing bodies of aided schools in mind. As its stands, Clause 26 (b) could be read as empowering the local authority to require returns direct from the head teacher of an aided school. If so, this would bypass the governing body which is the head teacher's employer.
I fully understand that in practice it is highly desirable for a local education authority to be able speedily to obtain returns from schools, and, indeed, I am confident that under prevailing circumstances governors of aided schools delegate to their heads responsibility for returns and require the head teacher to consult them only if difficulties are envisaged. I am sure that this clause can be worded in such a way, perhaps along the lines of the amendment, so that the position of governors of aided schools is safeguarded. I think this is a sufficiently important and reasonable point to be raised and if it can be looked at I would not wish to press the amendment. I beg to move.
The Earl of Swinton: I appreciate that this amendment is proposed in the light of the governing body's position as employer of the head teacher in an aided school, but the effect of it would be that the local education authority could not ensure that it is informed about the discharge of the head teacher's responsibilities in relation to the school. This could have a direct bearing on the authority's overall responsibility for securing sufficient and efficient educational opportunities for the pupils of the area.
Without such information, the authority could be hampered in carrying out its statutory responsibilities. I believe it is accepted that information needs to flow between the head teacher of an aided school and the local education authority. Requiring that requests for reports and the response always go through the governing body seems to us unnecessarily cumbersome. If the governors treat this stage as a formality, business is unnecessarily delayed. If, on the

851
other hand, they amend the report it is then no longer the head teacher's view. However, having said that, I think we may be able to move some way towards meeting the Church's natural concern that for aided schools where the governing body employs the head teacher it should not be kept in the dark over reports from the head to the LEA.
I have referred frequently during this Committee stage to a meeting between the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London, the Bishop of Menevia and my right honourable friend. I understand that at that meeting it was agreed that the point would be met if requests for reports from an LEA to an aided school's head teacher, and the reports themselves, were required to be copied to the governing body. This would not delay matters and would preserve such a report as the head teacher's own. It would also ensure that the governing body would know what was going on.
The Government undertake to table an amendment to that effect at a later stage. In the light of that undertaking, I hope that the right reverend Prelate will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
The Lord Bishop of Ely: I thank the noble Earl for his assurances on that point, and I am glad to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 81:
Page 29, line 26, at end insert—
(" (2) Subject to subsection (3) below, any such reports shall be available for inspection at all reasonable times and free of charge at the school.
(3) There may be excluded from the copies of reports made available in pursuance of subsection (2) above any information relating to—

(a) a named teacher or other person employed or proposed to be employed at the school.

(b) a named pupil at, or candidate for admission to, the school;

(c) any matter which, by reason of its nature, the governing body or, as the case may be, the head teacher consider should be regarded as confidential.")

The noble Lord said: We are still on the business of the relationship between the governing body, the head teacher and the local education authority and their several responsibilities to their several electors. It is not proposed that there should be an enormous increase in expenditure here in sending out reports between the governing body and the local education authority or between the head teacher, the governing body and the local education authority. But such reports presumably will have to be in writing anyway. They are required by the Bill as drafted, and it does seem reasonable that, with certain precautions which are contained in the amendment, they should be available to interested parties free of charge at the school.
The provisos contained in the amendments are that information about named teachers or employees, or potential employees—that is possibly the most important proviso—should not be included. Named pupils or candidates for admission to the school are not to be included and there should always be an opportunity for the governing body or the head teacher, as the case may be, to say that a particular report should be regarded as confidential.
I think that we have covered all the possibilities to protect pupils, teachers and confidential matters, which may be matters of discipline, and we say that with those exceptions it is proper that reports which are required by the local education authority of the governing body or required by the governing body on the local education authority or the head teacher, should be available to interested parties in some economical way. We propose that they should be available for inspection free of charge at the school at reasonable times. I do not believe that there is anything dramatic about the amendment. It is a natural extension of the Government's thinking. I hope that the Government will feel the same. I beg to move.
Baroness Hooper: I recognise that the purpose of this amendment is to give greater public access to the reports commissioned from the head teacher or the governing body. I also recognise that the terms of the amendment endeavour to ensure that items of a confidential nature do not have to be made available.
The Government support reasonable access for the public to matters of local concern. However, the purpose of the amendment seems to be achieved by the various other provisions that will be in place. For example, regulations to be made under Clause 7 will continue the existing provision in Regulation 12 of the School Governing Bodies Regulations 1981 for copies of the agendas and signed minutes of governing body meetings to be available for inspection at the school. It seems inconceivable that a report of any sort commissioned under Clause 7 would not be dealt with at the next convened governors' meeting either for information or for discussion and thus duly minuted. The purpose of the amendment would thus generally be met by the required publication of the agenda and the minutes. Those would not, of course, necessarily give the full details, but I ask the Committee to consider the types of matter which are likely to be the subject of the reports to which Clause 26 refers.
For a start, in many LEAs there may well not be any such reports from one year's end to the next. Others would be of the confidential nature excluded by the amendment. It is hoped that if the local education authority, the governing body and the head teacher build up good working relationships, information will flow freely among them and there will be little cause for formal written reports to be commissioned.
It may be that a report is commissioned about a matter of some significance—perhaps on the state of the school buildings or the overall level of equipment at the school—which would be of particular interest to parents. A report of such significance would however, he expected to feature in the governors' annual report to parents required under Clause 24, apart from in the minutes and the agendas to which I have already referred. If parents feel that the information given is insufficient, that the findings of the report are unsatisfactory or that the action taken as a result of the report is inappropriate, they will be free to raise the matter at their annual meeting and, if they feel strongly, pass a resolution. It seems to us that the amendment would needlessly duplicate existing channels of communication which are to be extended under the Bill. I therefore invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I do not see how the amendment duplicates existing channels of communication. It was helpful of the noble Baroness to repeat what I knew but perhaps the Committee did not know: that legislative provisions exist for the agendas and minutes of governing bodies' meetings to be available for inspection. That goes one part of the way towards meeting our objectives. To include the provision that the text of reports—this is important—which are formally required under Clause 26 either by the governing body or the local education authority should be provided is an addition to the requirements but it is not a duplication of the requirements.
I do not feel that the noble Baroness has gone as far as she might easily have gone to satisfy the reasonable demand for information about the relationships between the school. the governing body and the local education authority, as and when the occasion arises at the time of the report being required and made, rather than waiting for an annual parents' meeting and a resolution and conformity or otherwise with the resolution. I am bound to say that I did not find that part of the argument particularly convincing.
I shall have to look again and see whether there is some simpler way of achieving the same objective. I remain convinced that it is an objective with which the Government are, in principle, in agreement, except that they do not like other people's amendments very much, and that it ought to be possible to reach agreement perhaps at a later stage on something which achieves our objective without the roundabout way which the noble Baroness has proposed. In the light of that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 26 agreed to.
Clause 27 agreed to.
Clause 28 [Determination of staff complement for schools]:
9.45 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Ely The Lord Bishop of Ely moved Amendment No. 81A:
Page 30, line 15, at end insert—
("(4) In any Voluntary Aided School the persons employed as members of the non teaching staff, other than staff employed for the purposes of the provisions of School Meals, shall be appointed and dismissed by the Governors, save that the Local Education authority may give directions to the Governors as to the number and conditions of service of persons employed at the School for such purposes and the staff employed solely in connection with the provision of meals shall be appointed and employed by the Local Education Authority".)
The right reverend Prelate said: In moving this amendment with regard to non-teaching staff of aided schools, I am aware that the position implied by the 1944 Act, that all non-teaching staff of aided schools other than school meals staff are employed by the governors, is not necessarily in itself very clear. I understand that the 1944 Act refers only to care and maintenance staff. Although later regulations made reference to the local education authority employing the school meals staff, those regulations were repealed in 1969. But as the generally accepted practice is as set out in this amendment and, so far as I am aware, is not contested by the Department of Education and
854
Science, it has seemed desirable that the practice be set out in explicit terms, perhaps along the lines of the proposed amendment. I beg to move.
The Earl of Swinton: Your Lordships may recall from our earlier proceedings that I acknowledged that the Government agreed that some clarification of the position of non-teaching staff at aided schools was desirable. Indeed, this was discussed further at the famous meeting which I have mentioned a lot this evening. I do not think there is any disagreement at all between the Government and the Churches on the sort of provision required, but the precise form has not yet been agreed after necessary consultations. I have to suggest to the right reverend Prelate that his amendment may not be entirely suitable. In fact, he did himself mention the 1944 Act, and after all this amendment leaves untouched Section 22(4) of that Act, as amended by paragraph 2 of Schedule 3 to the Bill: and, at the least, those who have to interpret the legislation would find these two not entirely complementary provisions somewhat confusing. The Government have undertaken that once agreement is reached they will table their own amendment, and on that basis I ask the right reverend Prelate to withdraw his amendment.
The Lord Bishop of Ely: I am most grateful for the very careful response of the noble Earl and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 28 agreed to.
Clause 29 [Appointment and dismissal of staff: introductory]:
The Lord Bishop of Ely The Lord Bishop of Ely moved Amendment No. 81B:
Page 30, line 16 at beginning insert—
("Subject to sections 27 and 28 of the 1944 Act").
The right reverend Prelate said: The Bill contains detailed provisions about the employment and dismissal of staff—in particular, of staff in controlled and special agreement schools—and it is in this respect that I move this amendment. Sections 27 and 28 of the 1944 Education Act made special provision for staff in voluntary denominational schools to give religious instruction. They were known as reserved teachers in controlled and special agreement schools. It would seem highly desirable either that those sections should be repeated in this Bill in its very detailed provisions or at the very least that the sections should be referred to so that those local education authorities when making their articles of government under the new procedures laid down in the Bill do not lose sight of them. Perhaps this is another illustration of our opinion that model articles, or at least the guidance referred to by the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, during the first day of this Committee, are desirable.
The Earl of Swinton: I am happy to say yet again that there is no difference between the Government and the Churches over the purpose of this amendment.

855
It is not and has never been the intention of the Government that the important provisions in the 1944 Act concerning the appointment and dismissal of reserved teachers in controlled and special agreement schools and the special rights of foundation governors in this respect should be affected by the provisions of this Bill. This was made clear from the outset in paragraph 236 of the White Paper Better Schools.
In framing the legislation, it was concluded that no explicit reference was necessary to Sections 27 and 28 of the 1944 Act with which the present Bill is to be construed as one. However, on reflection, it appears to us that it would be helpful to have a reference to those sections on the face of the Bill to make absolutely clear the inter-relationship between those sections and the provisions of this Bill. While accepting the principle behind this amendment, I hope that the right reverend Prelate will allow us to study the matter a little more closely and to bring forward our own amendment at a later stage.
It may well appear that the terms of his amendment are quite straightforward and would cause no unintended problems but we need to make quite sure that the matter is dealt with in a way that is entirely consistent with the rest of the Bill. Again, in the light of the Government's acceptance of the principle of the amendment and our undertaking to bring forward our own amendment at a later stage, I invite the right reverend Prelate to withdraw his amendment.
The Lord Bishop of Ely: I am more than grateful for the respect with which the noble Earl has regarded the amendment and for the offer he has made to look at this question. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 29 agreed to.
Clause 30 agreed to.
Clause 31 [Appointment of head teacher]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 82:
Page 32, line 26, leave out from ("them") to end of line 29 and insert ("for the senior elected representatives of the authority present to exercise a casting vote.")
The noble Lord said: I have to say at the outset that I have looked at the wording of the amendment and I am not entirely happy about it. The intention is quite clear. It is to provide some way of avoiding unnecessary or undesirable re-advertisement for vacancies. This is particularly undesirable when we are concerned as we are in this clause with the appointment of head teachers.
As those who have ever been involved will know, the resignation of a head teacher at either of the dates in the school year, unless it has been prepared for a long time in advance, always causes a degree of crisis. There is always the possibility that somebody may have to act as the acting head because it may not be possible to find a head teacher within the time available before the resignation takes effect. Therefore anything in the procedure for the appointment of a head teacher which encourages or even allows unnecessary re-advertisement is to be deplored.
The intention of the amendment originally was that there should be the possibility of a casting vote from
856
the most senior elected representative of the authority—in the absence of any more obvious person, I would be willing to listen to representations about that as well—in order to avoid a deadlock and a compulsory and unwanted re-advertisement for the post.
On reflection, it would probably have been desirable to leave open the option of re-advertisement, together with the provision for a casting vote, to cut short the procedure. Even if one leaves the amendment as it stands, I realise on reflection that it would have been necessary to delete paragraph (iii) of subsection (g). I say immediately that I am very conscious of at least some of the drafting defects of my amendment. That, even if it were not for the lateness of the hour, encourages me to say that I shall not be pursuing it to a vote. However, the issue raised does deserve some consideration.
The Government have chosen, as so often in this Bill, to spell out in enormous detail on the face of the Bill the provisions for the appointment of a head teacher, just as they chose to spell out in enormous detail what happens to the size of the governing body if the number of pupils goes above or below some magic number. I can only think that they are causing enormous difficulties for themselves and extra work in the office of the parliamentary draftsmen. But that is their choice. Having done it, I think it is important that we should get it right.
It is important that we should not force re-advertisement where nobody in their right mind would have wanted it and where it may well mean an extra term, or sometimes even more, of an acting head. That is not good for continuity in a school. It is not good for the development of a strong ethos, a successful ethos, in the school. If any way can be found of avoiding it without a denial of the proper procedures of appointment, and without the risk of making wholly undesirable appointments, I hope that the Government will see their way to taking it.
I shall listen very carefully to what the Government say and see whether they can find any encouragement for me, but I believe that a probing amendment of this kind is necessary even at this time of night to raise what could be in some schools a very important issue.
Baroness Young: I appreciate the intention of this amendment and I do take the point that the noble Lord has raised when he says it is an important point. As I understand it, it is to remove any possibility of a deadlock in the selection of a head teacher by giving a casting vote to one of the panel members nominated by the authority.
I believe that this is quite properly a matter for debate. I can well understand the concern that there should be no undue delay in the appointment of a head teacher to a school. I am sure that in most cases the new arrangements proposed will not cause delay. The selection panel will carry out its work, agree a recommendation, and the authority will accept this recommendation and make the appointment. However, there will be occasions when, for whatever reasons, the selection panel cannot agree on a preferred candidate, in which case we all agree that the panel should look again at the existing candidates. Where the Government disagree with this amendment

857
is that the proposed amendment—and the amendment is not correct in assuming that there will necessarily be an elected representative of the authority on the panel—would require the senior local authority appointee on the panel as necessary to exercise a casting vote and force a recommendation. It would then of course be open to the authority to turn down this recommendation, but for obvious reasons this would be unlikely. In effect, the will of the authority would have been imposed on the governors.
I can well see the arguments underlying this desire to prevent a stalemate, but the Government view is that the post of head teacher is so important to the life of the school that it cannot be right for the authority to impose a head upon an unwilling governing body. It is essential that the governing body be fully involved in the making of that appointment. That may take time but surely it is better that the right decision should be made in the end than the wrong one taken more quickly.
To build into that process an ultimate casting vote for the authority's panel representative would be to deny the equal rights that the governing body must have in this case if we are to expect governors to play their full part in the affairs of the school. I should emphasise that even in those instances where the appointment process is protracted the school will not be left rudderless; an acting head will be appointed.
I recognise the importance of the point that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, raised. As we see the provision working, there would not be a vacuum if no head was chosen, because an acting head would be appointed and would remain in situ until such time as a head was appointed, so there can be no question of an impasse that cannot be broken. With that explanation of how we see that process working, I hope that the noble Lord will be prepared to withdraw his amendment.
10 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: For the reasons that I have already given, I do not propose to seek the decision of the Committee on this amendment. Indeed, in addition to the drafting defects that I pointed out, I appreciate what was said by the noble Baroness. The amendment in effect requires the senior representative to exercise a casting vote, whereas it ought to make it possible rather than require it. That is a further defect in the amendment.
It is all a matter of balance. There is no perfect solution in these matters. We happen to be less sanguine than are the Government about the prospects of the continued interregnum and the continued need for an acting head. We would rather cut short the procedure at a certain price to the equality between the governing body and the local education authority.
No one can say that there is a single right solution. The Government tend to take the other view of where the balance of preference lies. I should like to think again about the comments of the noble Baroness to see whether we can find something that tips the balance less firmly towards the local authority; something which in drafting terms is more defensible and yet which achieves our ultimate objective of avoiding a
858
long, drawn-out appointment procedure. With those thoughts in mind, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 31 agreed to.
Clauses 32 to 34 agreed to.
Clause 35 [Dismissal, etc. of stall]:
The Earl of Swinton The Earl of Swinton moved Amendment No. 82A:
Page 37, line 37, leave out from ("person") to end of line 38 and insert ("to whom subsection (3) below applies")
The noble Lord said: With the leave of the Committee I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 82B and 82D. The intention of those amendments is to ensure that the provisions for the dismissal of teachers are consistent with those for their appointment. Clauses 28 to 33 set up a hierarchy of consultation for appointments. For complemented staff, who include all full-time teachers, there are rigorous selection panel procedures, except when the local authority chooses to redeploy from another school in the authority, when there must be consultation with the governing body and the head teacher.
In the case of non-complemented staff employed solely to work at the school—for example, the groundsman in many schools—the LEA must consult the governing body. For peripatetic teachers or shared staff and for dinner ladies or midday supervisors only, the LEA has no obligation to consult.
The intention in drafting was that the provisions in Clause 35(1)(a) should be broadly symmetrical to those for appointments; that is, if a selection panel or consultation was required to appoint them, consultation should be required to dismiss, redeploy or permit early retirement for the holders of the post in question; and if no consultation is required to appoint them none should be required to dismiss, redeploy or permit early retirement. But as it stands Clause 35(1)(a) does not do this. Instead it would establish an anomalous situation where the LEA would have to consult over redeploying all non-complemented staff, including shared staff and dinner ladies, but would not have to consult over dismissing the same staff. The result would be to hamper the LEA's freedom to manage while also removing important rights of consultation over the dismissal of certain categories of non-complemented staff from the governing body.
The amendments correct the position by making it clear that Clause 35(1)(a)(i), (ii) and (iii)—covering dismissal, redeployment and early retirement—relate to the same class of employee; and it adds a new subsection (3) which specifies which employees are contained in that class. They are all those for whom some form of consultation is required in the appointment procedure—complemented staff and those employed to work solely at the school, except dinner ladies and midday supervisors. I beg to move.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: I presume there have been consultations with the teachers' associations on this amendment.
The Earl of Swinton: I do not think there were before the amendment was drafted. This amendment just brings the Bill into line with what we thought we were doing in the first place. Certainly there were consultations with everyone concerned before the Bill was drafted.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Swinton The Earl of Swinton moved Amendment No. 82B:
Page 37, line 39, leave out from ("any") to ("or"), in line 40, and insert ("such person to cease to work at the school").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Kilmarnock Lord Kilmarnock moved Amendment No. 82C:
Page 38, line 23, at end insert ("and
(f) for it to be the duty of the local education authority to make provision for the regular in-service training of all teaching staff appointed to permanent posts."
The noble Lord said: This amendment gives body to a concern that I expressed at Second Reading about what appears to me to be the inadequacy of the provisions in the Bill for in-service teacher training —or perhaps I should say the opportunities that have been lost in the present drafting. With the leave of the Committee I think it will be sensible for me to speak also to Amendments Nos. 86C and 86D, because essentially these amendments straddle two clauses.
Clause 35 basically puts various duties upon local education authorities and governing bodies, so we might perhaps describe it as a "duties" clause. Into that I have written a new duty which is embodied in Amendment No. 82C, which reads:
"For it to be the duty of the local education authority to make provision for the regular in-service training of all teaching staff appointed to permanent posts."
I am afraid that Clause 35 is the best place I could find to put that proposal.
Of course, the imposition of that duty on a local education authority says nothing about funding. For that reason I had to turn to Clause 38, to which Amendments Nos. 86C and 86D apply. When I first looked at Clause 38 I had some hopes of it because I saw in the margin the heading "Grants for teacher training", and in the clause various types of training are specified. However, I could find no mention of regular in-service training for all teachers appointed to permanent posts. I submit that both for their career development and for the quality of their teaching that is absolutely essential. The Secretary of State, of course, has certain powers to direct money for certain purposes, but there is no overall provision in Clause 38, as it stands, for the general acceptance of in-service training for all permanent teachers.
In my view this is extremely important both for teachers' morale and for their effectiveness in the classroom. I suggest also that it will be important in the future for attracting new talent after the settlement of the present troubles. It cannot be imagined that we shall continue indefinitely with the present unhappy situation in the schools. In fact it could be suggested that the right to in-service training might possibly become part of a new contract which is at present under discussion.
I hasten to reassure the noble Baroness or the noble Earl (I am not quite sure who will reply) that the
860
amendment is essentially a probing amendment to try to discover what is the Government's thinking in this extremely important area. It seems to me to be rather a pity to produce a new and quite substantial Education Bill and to introduce it into Parliament without addressing this extremely important and desirable development.
I shall not say any more about the series of amendments at this time of night. I shall simply move Amendment No. 82C and listen with interest to the Government's response. I beg to move.
The Earl of Swinton: These amendments would restrict the discretion of local authorities and the Secretary of State to allocate the resources available for in-service training so as to reflect relative needs and priorities. This would undermine the Bill's aim of promoting the more systematic and purposeful planning of in-service training.
As I am sure your Lordships will know, local authorities already have a general responsibility to ensure that their teachers receive adequate in-service training. It would not ensure the most effective disposition of the available resources if your Lordships were now to add to this a specific duty to make regular provision for all teachers. Some teachers will need training more often than others, depending on their qualifications and their present and future responsibilities. The proposed new grant scheme is intended to provide a framework for identifying such priorities and encouraging local authorities to plan their training in accordance with them.
I am sure that your Lordships will appreciate that training needs and priorities will vary from time to time and from area to area. In particular, the amount and disposition of the available resources need to be considered from year to year in the context of overall decisions on public expenditure. The primary aim of the intended new grants scheme is to promote more systematic and purposeful planning of in-service training so that the available resources are used to meet the highest training priorities. This would not be helped by tying the hands of the Secretary of State from the outset as these amendments propose.
I recognise the good intentions behind this amendment, and the Government believe firmly that better in-service training is required to achieve better standards of education, but we need to ensure that the resources available for training are used to best effect. The noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, said that this was a probing amendment and asked for the Government's views. I have given them to him.
Lord Kilmarnock: I am most grateful to the noble Earl for giving me the Government's position, which he has explained very fairly. I must confess that I am still left with some worry. The noble Earl says that needs vary from time to time and from area to area, which is no doubt true, but in my view it does not in fact take into account the desirability of giving all teachers the right to in-service training in the interests of their own career development and their own effectiveness.

861
Of course, the Secretary of State may assess priorities in a particular direction—for example, in mathematics or the sciences—but there are other teachers doing absolutely essential work in other disciplines who, it seems to me as the Bill is drafted, may well be left out of the type of specific grant which is contemplated under Clause 38. Having listened to the noble Earl and having expressed my own view, I shall go away and think about the matter and see whether we can come back at the next stage of the Bill with something that takes some account of what the noble Earl has outlined as being the Government's thinking. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
10.15 p.m.
The Earl of Swinton The Earl of Swinton moved Amendment No. 82D:
Page 38, line 25, at end insert—
("(3) This subsection applies to any person who is employed—

(a) in a post which is part of the complement of the school in question; or

(b) to work solely at the school in any other post, otherwise than solely in connection with either or both of the following—

(i) the provision of meals:

(ii) the supervision of pupils at midday.")

The noble Earl said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 35. as amended. agreed to.
Baroness Cox Baroness Cox moved Amendment No. 83:
After Clause 35, insert the following new clause:
("Remuneration of clerks to governing bodies of voluntary aided schools.
.—(1) This section applies in relation to any aided school.
(2) The articles of government for every aided school shall provide—

(a) for the clerk to the governing body to be appointed and dismissed by the governing body; and

(b) for the clerk's remuneration to be met by the local education authority.

(3) The clerk's rate of remuneration shall be determined by the local education authority after consultation with the governing body and shall be reviewed regularly.
(4) The Secretary of State shall by regulations give guidance to local education authorities in the matter of the discharge of their duties under subsections (2)(b) and (3) above.
(5) The Secretary of State may by regulations determine minimum rates of remuneration to be paid to clerks by local education authorities.")
The noble Baroness said: The clerk to the governors is indispensable to the smooth running of a school. Without a competent clerk, the governing body could not function efficiently and the proper government of the school would in consequence deteriorate. In an aided school, the governing body is responsible for employing teaching and non-teaching staff, admission of pupils and the conduct and curriculum of the school. The clerk therefore has a great deal of responsibility in assisting the governing body in the discharge of these responsibilities.
Since 1944, these responsibilities have become increasingly more onerous as governing bodies find themselves involved in matters such as employment legislation and contracts of work, disciplinary matters relating to staff and pupils, appeals against admission
862
decisions, providing information to parents, reconstituting governing bodies, the election of parent and teacher governors, curriculum initiatives and discussion with local education authorities. This new Education Bill proposes extending the responsihilities of governing bodies even further, thus making the case for a properly paid clerk even more urgent.
However, I have received representations from an Inner London Education Authority voluntary aided school, the London Oratory School, because of its concern that the clerk has never been paid despite long correspondence between ILEA, the governors and the DES. The failure to agree that the clerk should be paid seems to be unresolved despite the fact that, at other schools within ILEA, clerks receive payment. It seems important therefore that this particular anomaly should be rectified but also perhaps that some general principle should be agreed. I hope very much that my noble friend the Minister may be able to clarify the situation and offer some hope of resolution of this anomaly. I beg to move.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: Our freedom of choice of schools is very desirable. If religious schools find that they are being penalised by local authorities they may find the pressure too great and cease to exist. The greatest wish of many Roman Catholic parents is to be able to send their children to a Roman Catholic school. Having spoken to the headmaster of the Oratory School, I am told that discrimination over the payment of the clerk to the governing body of this aided school does exist. As the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, has said, the Department of Education and Science has tried to get ILEA to be fair but has not succeeded, Perhaps legislation is the only method that will work. I am therefore a supporter of the amendment. Who knows what the future may hold? All schools should he treated fairly.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: I, too, support the amendment on the grounds that it is worthwhile because of the additional work that will be placed on many schools, especially small ones, where usually the clerk is either the parish priest or someone in a similar capacity. They are asked these days to carry out an enormous number of tasks. It is therefore worthwhile that we should encourage local authorities along with the Government to agree to what is contained within the amendment.
Lord Kilmarnock: I am not out of sympathy with the spirit of the noble Baroness's amendment. She has spoken correctly of the increased responsibilities that are likely to devolve on clerks under the Bill. I am slightly worried, however, about the accessibility of clerks. In my experience, clerks to governing bodies tend to be professionals who have to be approached through their office, maybe a solicitor's office. It may not always be possible to get through, and some delay may be experienced. I am not casting any aspersions but it is, I believe, a fact. I wonder whether the noble Baroness envisages that there would be some obligation of accessibility, or availability, on clerks in conjunction with the statutory remuneration that she proposes for them.

863
I think that this is rather important. It relates to an earlier amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, about how to get the addresses of the governors. If the clerk is to be the channel for that it is important that he or she should be available. I wonder whether the noble Baroness envisages this alongside the remuneration that she is proposing?
Baroness Cox: It is a very important point. I shall seek clarification on it and perhaps have a word with the noble Lord. I cannot answer this specific case at the moment but I think that the general point is a valid one and something that we should like to consider.
Baroness Hooper: I understand fully that the concern of the noble Baroness in moving this clause, and indeed of the noble Baroness and other noble Lords who have spoken to it, is to draw attention to the anomalous position of some clerks to governors at aided schools. Matters such as those covered by this clause are normally left to individual school's articles of government. Where these cover the remuneration of the clerk—and I should make it clear that we are talking about an honorarium rather than a salary—they normally specify that such remuneration shall be determined by the local education authority. The usual form of words leave it open to the local education authority to determine the remuneration at nil, and this is the current bone of contention.
It is asserted, rightly in the Government's view, that the duties of the clerk to the governing body of the aided school are by no means negligible and, because the governing bodies of aided schools have greater responsibilities than those of other schools, consequently often the duties performed by their clerks can be more substantial, as was fully described by my noble friend Lady Cox.
However, although we are sympathetic to the principle the Government do not believe that this is a matter which should be standardised in primary legislation. There are no doubt a number of cases where aided school governing body clerks are not paid, where they do not wish to be paid and where there is no difficulty in obtaining suitable people to do the job, despite the lack of remuneration. In those circumstances, we feel that it would be inappropriate to impose extra expenditure on the local education authority.
We also feel that it would be both inappropriate and impracticable for the Secretary of State to impose centrally determined minimum rates to try to meet widely differing circumstances up and down the country. We therefore believe that such matters are best left to be determined in the articles of governments according to the circumstances of the individual schools.
The Bill already offers a way out of the problem. Aided schools are affected by a number of provisions in this Bill, such as that their articles of government will need to be redrawn. Under the provisions of Clause 2 the local education authority will be responsible for this but will need to secure the agreement of the governing body. In the event of lack of agreement on any proposed provision in the articles, either the local education authority or the governing
864
body may refer the dispute to the Secretary of State who will determine the question.
It would therefore be open to any aided school governing body which felt unable to agree to the local education authority's proposed treatment of the clerk's remuneration in the articles of government to refer the question to the Secretary of State. He would then, in effect, determine case by case whether the clerk should be remunerated.
I should make clear that this is not a once-for-all operation. At any time the governors may propose an amendment to their articles. If there is disagreement the matter may be referred to the Secretary of State for a decision. I suggest that all this would achieve substantially the same effect as what is proposed by the noble Baroness in subsections (4) and (5) of the proposed clause.
With regard to the matters dealt with in subsection (2) the Government believe such a measure to be unnecessary. There has never been any question that the governors of an aided school are the employers of their clerk; or, if he is remunerated, that the cost is borne by the local education authority as part of the running costs of the school.
Attention has been drawn specifically to the case of the London Oratory. We have sympathy with the situation of the school. I hope that the noble Baroness will accept that the Department of Education and Science has been doing its best to resolve the present clearly unsatisfactory position by agreement with the Inner London Education Authority. However, this is a question which in future could be referred to the Secretary of State when articles are to be made or amended.
Baroness Cox: As I understand it from a letter I have from the headmaster of the London Oratory School, the governors have submitted and re-submitted this case to the Secretary of State in the terms which the noble Baroness outlined. However, so far there has been no satisfactory resolution to the problem or even a satisfactory reply.
Baroness Hooper: I feel sure that the discussion we are having this evening may speed up the process. I finish on this point by saying that this is a question which in future could be referred to the Secretary of State when articles are to be made or amended, and under the provisions of Clause 2(6) his powers of determination would be considerably wider than his current limited powers of intervention under Sections 68 and 99 of the 1944 Act.
In the light of the Government's view that such matters are best handled on a school-by-school basis on their individual circumstances and that the framework of the Bill will allow disputes to be decided by the Secretary of State on this basis, I hope that the noble Baroness will be prepared to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: Can the noble Baroness give an undertaking that the headmaster of the Oratory School will receive a reply from the Secretary of State before the Report stage of this Bill?
Baroness Hooper: I shall certainly draw the request of the noble Baroness to my right honourable friend's attention, and I feel sure that there need be no problem on this.
Baroness Cox: I am most grateful to noble Lords and to the noble Baroness for contributing to this discussion and also to those who have expressed their support for the spirit of this amendment. I am also grateful to my noble friend the Minister for the clarification she has been able to give. I shall consider carefully the points she has made and consult those most directly concerned. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 36 [School premises]:
10.30 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 84:
Page 38, line 29, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert ("for the use of the school premises at all times to be under the control of the local education authority.")
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is to maintain the existing system, as we understand it, for the control of school premises outside school hours. The present situation is that the voluntary and aided schools have the control of the school premises vested in the governing body, whereas the county and maintained special schools have it in the hands of the local education authority. If there is to be a change of the sort proposed in Clause 36, then surely it is incumbent upon the Government to show that the accessibility and control of school premises outside school hours is significantly worse in the case of county and maintained special schools than it is in the case of the aided schools.
The Notes on Clauses include the phrase that they hope that the effect of this will be to increase community use of the school premises. I would suggest that the effect is likely to be exactly the opposite. The governing body of a school is inevitably, because of all the rest of its functions, concerned with the availability of the school premises, preferably in pristine condition, for the purposes of the school alone. The local education authority, on the other hand, as part of a local authority, is concerned with a much wider range of interests which wish, and indeed have a perfectly good right, to make use of school premises.
I am particularly concerned with community groups, with adult education and with all sorts of classes and activities and social events which can more conveniently and more cheaply be made available in school premises than they can anywhere else. Indeed, in many parts of the country the school premises are the only, not just the best, premises available for out of-school activities. I suggest to the Committee that the interests of all these other groups who wish to make use of school premises, and ought to be able to make use of school premises, ought to be paramount and" that the governors' view will inevitably tend to be more partial than the view of the community as a whole. That is quite apart from the obligation laid down by the Representation of the People Act on local authorities to make school premises available for political meetings at election times.
The letting of school premises, which is almost always a separate section within the education department, is an extremely complex and difficult matter. In an authority area the letting section is almost always one of the most heavily pressed departments and hard-pressed by different interests. They have to balance the interests of the school and the maintenance of the premises in good condition for school purposes—I am the first to say that I believe that is a very high priority—with all the interests of the different community groups who want access to the school premises. Nobody who has ever seen the way the letting section works and the difficulties they have in negotiations with school caretakers, for example, will deny that this is a complex task which requires, I suggest to the Committee, a conscious effort not just of policy but of implementation of policy by a local education authority for the different interests in the authority as a whole. It is not enough to have it delegated to the governing body.
Many of the organisations that will wish to use the school premises are not confined to the catchment area of the school. They will be looking for premises in different parts of the authority's area at different schools. They will be looking for the same sort of treatment in one of the authority's schools as they receive in another of the authority's schools. The work could be impeded if they find different policies undertaken by different governing bodies. The whole of the complex interaction between different community uses and the school needs and the school premises could be destroyed by different policies pursued by different governing bodies. I say this even in the context of the existing connections between schools and the communities.
The Committee will recall that in December we had a debate on community schools in which all speakers, including the noble Earl on behalf of the Government, welcomed the movement for community schools; one important aspect of which is the opening up of school premises to wider community use.
I suggested at the beginning—I apologise for taking time, but this is a very important amendment even though it is the last one on Part III—that it is incumbent on the Government to show why there is deep dissatisfaction, such dissatisfaction as to justify this clause with the existing system of lettings and to show in what way the system proposed (which is broadly that now used by the voluntary sector) is better than the existing system for the controlled sector. I am not criticising the governors of voluntary schools. What I am saying is that they could not exercise their freedom (which I should not want to take away) to control the use of their premises, except in the context where there is a body of controlled county schools, the access to whose premises is made available according to policies laid down by the local education authority.
Finally, it is not satisfactory to rely on Clause 36(b), whereby the local education authority can give a direction to the governing body in the exercise of its control. If that direction is to be effective in the light of the considerations that I have been discussing, it would have to be enormously detailed and would lead to a quite unnecessary duplication of powers. If it is not to

867
be effective and is not to be adequately detailed, then we are going to have the kind of difficulties with the use of school premises which I have outlined.
I am sorry that it comes at this time, but I believe that it is necessary to consider this matter and to consider whether there is any really well-founded justification for the change which is proposed in Clause 36 as drafted. I beg to move.
Lord Kilmarnock: I have greatly admired most of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh's contributions to the discussions at this Committee stage of the Bill and I have agreed with a great deal of what he had to say. On this occasion, I am not sure that I go along with him. It seems to me that he has pointed to the existing Clause 36(b) in the Bill as written, which reads:
"for the governing body to exercise control subject to any direction given to them by the local education authority".
He has suggested that this opens up an enormous field of conflict. I would have thought that in the majority of cases where reasonably harmonious relations existed between the local education authority and the governing body, this would not be the case and that the sort of concerns that he has expressed would be largely covered by paragraph (b) of the clause as it stands. So on this occasion—although on many other occasions I have supported him—I am inclined not to do so.
The Earl of Swinton: The effect of this amendment would be that the school's premises would at all times be under the control of the LEA. Here, I think I am going to tackle the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, and put forward an extremely good case as to why the Government think that they have this right. In fact, we hope that this clause will have the effect of increasing community use of school premises, and we intend to offer post-Act guidance to that effect. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh mentioned the debate that we had on community schools and the part that I took in it. I should like to repeat that school premises are a public asset and the Government believe that they should be as fully utilised as practicable within the resources available. In our view—and this is where I differ from Lord McIntosh—governing bodies are well placed to ensure that the community served by the school is offered reasonable opportunities to make use of the school's facilities.
I would point out that the clause provides for the governing body's control to be subject to any directions that the authority may give them and this is intended to safeguard the position of the LEA as the provider of resources and also to ensure that the authority can itself use the premises for non-school purposes. Directions issued by an authority might cover general matters such as avoiding over-use of playing fields and not incurring caretaking costs above a certain figure, or might preclude lettings between particular times or on particular evenings when the LEA might need the premises for adult education or for the youth service.
I was coming up to the point that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, specifically raised. Of course, I am aware that a number of authorities operate a centralised booking system and that they fear they would not be able to continue to do so under the provisions of
868
this clause. I can readily appreciate that such a system is a considerable advantage to authorities who wish to exercise tight control over the use of school premises, and I can also see that it might at times be helpful to those wishing to book premises, who can be offered an alternative then and there if their first choice is not available.
However, provided that all the schools concerned agree that it is a good idea—and it will be up to the local education authority to persuade them—we can see no reason why a centralised booking system could not still be operated. It would mean that the individual governing bodies would have to decide on their lettings policies and that whoever was operating the centralised system would have to act in accordance with those policies for each school and with the LEA's overall directions. We acknowledge that a system would be less straightforward to operate than at present. but I believe that it could be done.
I think I rest my case on this above all. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has argued that the provisions of this clause would result in less, not more, community use because the governing body would be over-protective of the premises and would not regard itself as accountable to the electorate. I believe that this is a misconception. The noble Lord asked me to justify the fact that governing bodies of aided schools were producing better letting arrangements than local authority schools. I am not going to argue that. What I would argue is that the new-style governing bodies should provide much stronger links with the community than has previously necessarily been the case.
If parents, who will, after all, belong to the community served by the school, feel that the governing body is too restrictive in its letting policy or that the LEA has issued over-stringent direction, they can raise the matter at the annual parents' meeting. And if a resolution is passed, the governing body or the LEA will be under a duty to consider the resolution and report back on it in the next annual governors' report.
The governors will be parents and they will, we hope, be local local authority representatives. They will be co-opted members of industry and the community generally; they will be just the sort of people to encourage local letting, rather than try to hinder it, I should have thought. As I have already said, the Government also intend to issue post-Act guidance pointing out that the aim of the clause is to increase community use, subject to the availability of resources.
I have gone on at length because I think the noble Lord, even at this late stage, threw down a challenge. I think I have answered it well. There may be a difference of opinion and he may think that our projections will not work out; but I can say on behalf of the Government most sincerely that we think the new ideas and the new governing bodies will increase the community use of school premises. I hope, having heard my arguments, that the noble Lord will feel able, with a clear conscience as always, to withdraw his amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Earl has spent a great deal of time putting forward very much

869
inferior proposals to those which would be achieved by my amendment. He hopes that, by agreement, schools in a local authority area will co-operate in a central booking system, whose benefits both to the authority and to the users of school premises he recognised in his speech. If that is the case and if that is so desirable, surely it could be achieved much more readily by accepting my amendment than in the way he proposes.
The Earl of Swinton: Even at this late hour I think I must rise to that. I did not say that. What I said was that where this had been working in the past in a local authority that particularly liked this arrangement—I did not necessarily say that it was a better arrangement—it could be continued under the Act. I admitted that it may be more difficult, but that was not the reason I put forward for dismissing the noble Lord's amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: It was one of the reasons and it was one of the least convincing reasons among the many other unconvincing reasons that the noble Earl put forward. The burden of proof is clearly on the Government. It is the Government who are trying to change a system which, to the best of my knowledge and taking into account anything the noble Earl has said on behalf of the Government, has not been criticised. If there is to be a change of this sort it has to be shown that the alternative is better than what we have at the moment.
I am quite unconvinced by the circuitous arguments that have been put forward, and indeed, with the permission of the Committee, I should like to put forward one further brief point. Why should the governing body, which is elected to be concerned with the conduct of the school and the welfare of the pupils and teachers at the school, even want to control the use of the school premises outside? It is a quite different matter. It is a matter for the community as a whole; a matter which is much better exercised on behalf of the community as a whole by the elected representatives of the community as a whole, the local education authority. Unless the noble Earl can come up with very much better arguments than those he has put forward, I shall have to consider in what form I raise this matter again. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 36 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 84A not moved.]
Lord Denham: I think we have now reached the proper stopping-place for this evening. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at a quarter before eleven o'clock.

  NEWS INTERNATIONAL, WAPPING: INJURIES TO WORKERS
  NEWS INTERNATIONAL, WAPPING: INJURIES TO WORKERS
  PATHOGENS: RECORDS AND INSPECTION OF HOLDINGS
  PATHOGENS: RECORDS AND INSPECTION OF HOLDINGS
  SEISMOLOGICAL RECORDING CENTRES: EXCHANGE OF DATA
  SEISMOLOGICAL RECORDING CENTRES: EXCHANGE OF DATA
  PRISONS: EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES FOR INMATES
  PRISONS: EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES FOR INMATES
  SUNDAY TRADING LAW: ENFORCEMENT
  SUNDAY TRADING LAW: ENFORCEMENT
  BROADWATER FARM DISTURBANCES: INJURIES TO POLICE
  BROADWATER FARM DISTURBANCES: INJURIES TO POLICE
  EC AUDIOVISUAL POLICY: DRAFT DIRECTIVE
  EC AUDIOVISUAL POLICY: DRAFT DIRECTIVE
  TREATY OF TLATELOLCO: BRITISH COMPLIANCE
  TREATY OF TLATELOLCO: BRITISH COMPLIANCE
  NUCLEAR AND SPACE TALKS, GENEVA: US PROPOSAL
  NUCLEAR AND SPACE TALKS, GENEVA: US PROPOSAL
  UNESCO: REALLOCATION OF FUNDS
  UNESCO: REALLOCATION OF FUNDS
  SECONDMENTS TO THE CIVIL AND DIPLOMATIC SERVICES
  SECONDMENTS TO THE CIVIL AND DIPLOMATIC SERVICES