Sitting of 10 December 1986

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

    CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL
    Order for Third Reading read.
    To be read the Third time tomorrow.

  PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL
  GAIRLOCH HARBOUR ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
  SHETLAND ISLANDS COUNCIL (HAM VOE, FOULA) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
  Read the Third time, and passed.
  Mr. Speaker: Questions to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry—
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, which relates to the business of the House. The whole House is grateful to you for the protection and consideration that you give to Back Benchers. You may have noticed that the Order Paper states that Prime Minister's Questions are to begin at 3.15 pm. Surely the Leader of the Opposition deserves protection as well, and it may help him out of his discomforture to—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that Her Majesty's Stationery Office also deserves protection. It was a mistake.

Oral Answers to Questions
  TRADE AND INDUSTRY

    Ford Motor Company (UK)
    Mr. Favellasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he last met the chairman of the Ford Motor Company (UK) and what subjects were discussed.
    The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Mr. Giles Shaw): My right hon. Friend met the chairman of Ford of Britain and some of his colleagues on 14 October. Discussion covered a wide range of topics.
    Mr. Favell: Given the distressing news last week that Austin Rover's share of the home market is now below 13 per cent., has the Department any intention of reopening negotiations with the Ford Motor Company (UK)? That would be eminently sensible from the taxpayer's point of view and would protect perhaps not one or two Dumbos in management but the rest of the employees of Austin Rover.
    Mr. Shaw: I understand my hon. Friend's question, but the position remains as reported to the House on 6 February, namely, that the possibility of the sale of Austin Rover to Ford will not be pursued.
    Mr. Park: Does the Minister agree that the continual picking at Austin Rover does incalculable damage to that company's future?
    Mr. Shaw: I entirely agree with that observation. It is a fact that Austin Rover continues to compete against a substantial view cultivated by many people outside the House and by some hon. Members that seeks to diminish the company's prospect of succeeding.
    Mr. Norris: I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Park). Those of us who greatly welcomed the statement to the House the other day about having confidence in the future of Austin Rover very much regret the continual sniping at that company, which has enough difficulties to overcome in establishing itself as a niche marketer without that sort of additional difficulty.
    Mr. Shaw: I welcome my hon. Friend's observation. It is essential that all hon. Members on both sides of the House should recognise the realities of the situation.
    Mr. Evans: When the Secretary of State next meets the chairman of the Ford Motor Company (UK), will he tell him that Pilkington Brothers of St. Helens is a major glass supplier to that company and that the best way of safeguarding its supplies for the future would be for the chairman to use his influence in the City of London to ensure that Pilkington remains an independent company?
    Mr. Shaw: I admire the hon. Gentleman's observations, but he will understand that I cannot comment on them, other than to say that Ford motors are produced in this country with a very high United Kingdom component level.

    Product Liability
    Mr. McCrindleasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many representations he has received on the subject of product liability since 12 November.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Michael Howard): Since 12 November the Department has received only five representations on the subject of product liability.
    That is perhaps not surprising in view of the wide consultation we undertook last year on the implementation of the EC directive on product liability, when we issued more than 5,000 copies of our consultative document and received over 200 replies.
    Mr. McCrindle: Is it correct to describe the Government's policy on this issue as a balance between introducing further rights of redress to injured consumers and containing industrial costs by allowing manufacturers certain residual defences? If so, many of us agree with that, as otherwise the cost of product liability insurance, if it is available at all, would increase considerably and ultimately so would the cost of products to the consumer.
    Mr. Howard: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. It is because we desire to continue to encourage innovation that the development risk defence has been retained. It is

    325
    not only the cost but the availability of insurance that is important in that respect, as the Association of British Insurers recently confirmed.
    Mr. Ashdown: Does the Minister accept that many believe that the acceptance of development risk liability has been created by powerful lobbying, particularly on the part of the pharmaceutical industry? Will he undertake to look at this matter again, especially as the insurance industry has indicated that it can be made available at relatively little cost? Does he accept, for instance, that those who suffered as a result of Thalidomide would not have received compensation under the development risk clause?
    Mr. Howard: On the last point, the answer is no. A legal decision was never reached on the liability of the manufacturers of Thalidomide since the case was settled out of court. In the absence of that decision it is irresponsible for anyone to make judgments as to whether the Consumer Protection Bill would ensure compensation for victims like those of Thalidomide and I certainly do not intend to do so. Since then, the Medicines Act 1968 provides for a comprehensive system of licensing which makes it unlawful for medical products to be manufactured, sold, supplied or imported except in accordance with appropriate licences and clinical trial certificates. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman, representing as he does a constituency in which the aviation industry is such an important interest, should call for the elimination of the development risk defence.
    Mr. Williams: Why are the Government willing to allow manufacturers to escape paying damages by pleading the development risk defence when Belgium and France are making no such allowance, when Germany has made it clear that it will not allow that defence in relation to drugs, medicines and pharmaceutical products, and when the Law Commission for England and Wales and the Pearson commission, which was set up in the aftermath of the Thalidomide tragedy, said that the defence should not be allowed? Why have the Government surrendered to the industrial lobby and why have they abandoned the consumer, who, in future, could be left without any action for damages in any Thalidomide-type disaster?
    Mr. Howard: I have answered the question on Thalidomide. It is important to recognise that the development risk defence places upon manufacturers the burden of raising and proving it. The defence is defined in very precise terms and it will be necessary for the manufacturer, if he is to rely on it, to show that no producer of products of the same description might have been expected to discover the defect. It would not be sufficient to point to particular testing difficulties encountered by him or even that he had followed procedures adopted by other manufacturers. He must have taken all the steps that he might have been expected to take by the informed observer. In those circumstances, it it is right that he should have that defence.

    Copyright
    Mr. Hanleyasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received relating to the introduction of amending legislation on copyright law.
    The Minister for Information Technology (Mr. Geoffrey Pattie): I have received several representations from hon. Members, individual companies, industry representative bodies and private individuals urging the Government to introduce legislation on copyright during the present parliamentary Session or inquiring generally as to when such legislation might be expected.
    Mr. Hanley: Is my hon. Friend aware of the urgency with which this legislation is awaited in many quarters, not least by the music industry? Is my hon. Friend still committed to the just and necessary levy on blank tapes?
    Mr. Pattie: Yes.
    Mr. Meadowcroft: Does the Minister accept that the present law is wholly inadequate to deal with, for instance, the development of high technology? Is he aware that whereas one accepts the need to protect intellectual property, the present law allows huge corporations to sue for alleged breach of copyright by smaller companies which, before the case comes to court, are, of course, out of business? Does the Minister intend to introduce a Bill and, if so, when?
    Mr. Pattie: The hon. Gentleman will be aware from the White Paper that one of the proposals contained therein concerns the speeding up of processes of patent law and the introduction of new procedures which will make it easier, and therefore less costly, for smaller firms to have access to the patent procedure. The introduction of a Bill will be as soon as the parliamentary timetable permits.
    Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Is my hon. Friend aware that the proposals regarding intellectual property in respect of the broad base of engineering design will endanger far more jobs in the component industries than it will safeguard in intial manufacturing industry and that the consumer's interest is wholly opposed to any such legislation, so the balance of advantage for Britain must be against it?
    Mr. Pattie: I am aware of the strength of representations on this. I assure my hon. Friend and the House that we have very much an open mind on this. We want to get the balance right. So far as we are concerned, the question is still open.
    Mr. Merlyn Rees: I understand the reasons for the delay, as it must be very difficult to translate the White Paper into legislation, but is the hon. Gentleman aware that the long-term development of two firms in my constituency will be inhibited by the delay? Cannot firms of that kind be told that there will be a delay of, say, 10 years—that would suit me—before such changes will take place?
    Mr. Pattie: I am not sure whether the right hon. Gentleman is referring to delays or to companies concerned about components in the motor trade. As I have just said, we are concerned to get the balance right in this very complicated issue. We are still discussing with the industry what the relevant procedures would be.
    Mr. Key: I congratulate my hon. Friend on having the courage to grasp this very prickly nettle, but will he ensure that he hits the right target and does not bring down small firms such as Moore's Pistons and Auto and General Electrical in my constituency, which would be especially hard hit, as the alternative to their manufacturing might well be greater import penetration?
    Mr. Pattie: That is precisely the kind of point that we wish to take into account.
    Mr. Williams: Does the hon. Gentleman recall that when the Secretary of State was previously at the Department, on 22 December 1983, he promised effective and resolute action to tackle the problem of counterfeiting and issued a pamphlet on the subject? Is he aware that three years later, in the peak buying period before Christmas, our street markets are flooded with counterfeit perfume, after-shave, toys and tapes? In November last year the Under-Secretary of State said that he was convinced that no further action was needed. Is that still the Government's view? Do they intend to take any action at all to stop this multi-million pound rip-off of the British public, or will they simply issue another pamphlet?
    Mr. Pattie: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware of the recent EEC directive on this. We shall wish to harmonise our legal requirements with that directive. I believe that there is a better way forward under that regime, which the right hon. Gentleman and his party appear not to support.
    Mr. Robert Atkins: We are grateful for the fact that my hon. Friend is prepared to consider this matter especially in relation to the automotive industry. May I emphasise how much hostility and strength of feeling there is in the components and automotive support industries, as shown in my letters to him from constituents and in representations from national organisations? Does he accept that to legislate in that specific area would cause enormous damage?
    Mr. Pattie: I accept what my hon. Friend said. His representations and others are being taken into account in this complicated and difficult matter. We hope to reach a decision before too long.

    Exports
    Mr. Livseyasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has recently received on Government support for exporters.
    The Minister for Trade (Mr. Alan Clark): I receive frequent representations from industry about specific business opportunities overseas, and about services provided by the Government through the British Overseas Trade Board, which also advises the Government on these matters.
    Mr. Livsey: Will the Minister look carefully at the CBI's "Business Manifesto", which expressly states that foreign Governments give their manufaturers far more support in relation to exports than is the case in this country?
    Mr. Clarke: The budget of the British Overseas Trade Board will rise next year and the year after to more than £28 million. In addition, some £100 million has been spent by the Foreign Office in the past two years through its commercial councellors in overseas posts.
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Has my hon. Friend heard the news from the British Footwear Manufacturers Federation that exports in the third quarter of this year were 20 per cent. up on last year and are now at an all-time record? Although the Opposition may have their own reasons for running down those achievements, is it not a
    328
    fact that important sections of British industry are now competing very well in the world markets? The best thing for my hon. Friend's Department would be to stay well clear of those industries.
    Mr. Clark: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for his advice. If that is the wish of the footwear industry, I am sure that my Department, whose resources are necessarily limited, will be only too glad to comply.
    Mr. Nicholas Brown: Is the Minister aware that no industrial sector has tried harder in the export field than the British power plant industry? As the Department of Trade and Industry is its sponsoring Department, what discussions does the Minister have with his right hon. Friend at the Department of Energy about securing a base domestic work load for that industrial sector?
    Mr. Clark: I have periodic consultations with my right hon. Friend at the Department of Energy.
    Mr. Conway: Bearing in mind the success of my hon. Friend's Department in supporting the British Overseas Trade Board, the regional development councils and the chambers of trade in helping, assisting and advising exporters, will he tell the House what steps the Department could take to assist those exporters based in areas that are not in receipt of such Government largesse, especially those in rural areas?
    Mr. Clark: All the facilities of the British Overseas Trade Board are available, and they are especially geared towards assisting smaller firms—such as those in my hon. Friend's constituency—which might not have full first-hand experience of exporting but are none the less well placed by reason of their products and their competitiveness to penetrate overseas markets. It is precisely those sectors that the BOTB is geared to assist.
    Mr. Ron Brown: Has the Minister received any representations from NEI, bearing in mind that company's fine achievement in exporting submarine lifting gear to Libya? May I remind the Minister that that company is one of the biggest contributors to Tory party funds? It is also significant in the north-east of England and in Scotland. Has the Minister heard from that company?
    Mr. Clark: I have frequent consulations with NEI. I am glad to pay tribute to the role that it plays in our whole overseas projects business. I am sure that it would reciprocate by acknowledging the help that it receives under the aid and trade provision.
    Mr. Hirst: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Weir group of Glasgow, which has been making considerable efforts to develop its pump exports in Asia, and which was recently visited by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, has expressed considerable gratitude for the support and encouragement the Department has given it in developing these exports? Is that not precisely the role that his Department should be undertaking?
    Mr. Clark: I am happy to receive my hon. Friend's endorsement. As he said, the Weir group was recently visited by my right hon. Friend. I am glad that it is satisfied with the assistance that it is receiving, which is precisely along this lines that we hope to advance.
    Mr. Robin Cook: Is the Minister aware that during the time of the Government the number of staff in his

    329
    Department working in exports has fallen from 1,200 to 700, that the number of overseas trade fairs has fallen by one seventh, the number of trade missions by a third, and the number of commercial counsellors attached to the Foreign Office by one sixth? Is not the outcome of that record that, having inherited a £3 billion surplus in manufacturing trade, the Government have successfully managed to convert it into a deficit of £4 billion? Why does the Minister not face that fact and admit that his Department's cuts have cut our exports?
    Mr. Clark: I have already told the House that the budget is increasing for this year, next year and the year following. The hon. Gentleman referred to the decline in our manufacturing exports, but—as I hope to explain in answer to a later question, if we reach it—manufacturing exports have increased. The trend continues to be upwards.

    Touring Abroad (Prepaid Packages)
    Dr. Michael Clarkasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will introduce measures to regulate the sale of prepaid packages for touring abroad.
    Mr. Howard: My right hon. Friend has no plans at present to introduce legislation to regulate package tours. The Government favour self-regulation by the travel industry provided that it operates effectively. The effectiveness of the Association of British Travel Agents' code of conduct is currently being reviewed by the Director General of Fair Trading.
    Dr. Clark: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that there are travel firms in Britain which try to persuade Britons to go to America by selling them hotel vouchers which purport to offer a discounted rate whereas, in the majority of cases, the vouchers are more expensive than the hotels would be if they were booked on the spot? Is he further aware that the majority of the hotels also require a surcharge to be paid and that, in this way, British tourists are being cheated? Does my hon. and learned Friend intend to look into this matter? Will he refer it to the Director General of Fair Trading?
    Mr. Howard: This is not a difficulty which has previously been drawn to the Department's attention, but if my hon. Friend will send me details of the cases that he has come across, I shall certainly look into them.
    Mr. Heffer: Is it not clear that many ordinary working people get rooked and find themselves in great difficulty? They go on tours only to find that the hotel does not exist or that it is overbooked or that it is nothing like the brochure says. They get a pretty raw deal. Does the Minister listen to the excellent programme called "Breakaway" on BBC Radio 4 on Saturday mornings? Does he agree that if it was not for that programme, many people would not get a square deal? Is it not time that the Government did something about protecting ordinary people on package tours so that they can have a decent holiday, and, which is contrary to the Government's nonsensical philosophy, have proper protection?
    Mr. Howard: I am a frequent listener to the "Breakaway" programme and I welcome the publicity that it can draw to the cases of people who need help. They have remedies under the law and under the arbitration provisions of the ABTA code of conduct. Those provisions should be drawn to the public's attention.

    Engineering Industry
    Mr. Tony Lloydasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the future of the engineering industry.
    Mr. Giles Shaw: The prospects for the United Kingdom engineering industry are encouraging and I feel sure it will continue to make a vital contribution to our economic prosperity in the future.
    Output has been rising steadily over the past five years and output per head has risen by 30 per cent., demonstrating a significant improvement in productivity.
    The Confederation of British Industry "Industrial Trends" survey for October indicated that both mechanical and electrical engineering firms were expecting new orders to increase over the next four months. For the medium term, the National Institute for Economic and Social Research forecasts mechanical engineering growth at 1·5 per cent. per annum and electrical engineering at 3·5 per cent. per annum, the fastest for any manufacturing sector over the next five years.
    Mr. Lloyd: The Minister paints a rosy picture of the industry, but it is the same industry which has lost 1 million jobs since the Government came to power and the same industry which can no longer offer a future to young people in my constituency and many others. Do the Government intend to use the public sector to revitalise the engineering industry in the many areas where the public sector is an important purchaser, as that is what we have not seen in the past and why we are still losing jobs in Trafford and elsewhere?
    Mr. Shaw: I do not deny that there has been a substantial contraction in employment and a significant restriction on the number of apprenticeships available, as the hon. Gentleman knows from discussions that we have had previously. He will be aware, however, that public sector purchasing plays a vital part, especially in the power generation industry.
    Mr. Watts: Does my hon. Friend agree that the opportunities for the engineering industry are very much greater than the growth forecasts that he quoted and that the proof of this is to be found by visiting any factory and seeing the vast quantity of imported machinery that is used? The challenge is therefore to British companies to identify what sort of equipment is imported and to get into the market and produce it itself.
    Mr. Shaw: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There are many sectors of engineering in which there is a high level of import penetration and in which United Kingdom producers could meet the demand. With the reduced costs that many are now carrying, they should be able to meet such demand if they have a mind to do so.
    Mr. Hardy: Is the Minister aware that one indicator of the dreadful decline in our steel and engineering industries is that the Ministry of Defence has now invited Thyssen to tender for certain engineering steels required by Her Majesty's armed forces? Is the Minister further aware that the Federal Republic will not allow any other power to tender for similar supplies for the German services? Is that not an appalling example of the deplorable negligence of the past five years?
    Mr. Shaw: I shall look into whether we are able to tender for other European orders. The hon. Gentleman

    331
    will be among the first to recognise that, with the wider Community market available for the full range of engineering products, the prospects for the British to compete are increasing.
    Mr. John Mark Taylor: In considering the future of the engineering industry, will my hon. Friend take note of the recent survey from the Birmingham chamber of industry and commerce, which showed that the two greatest inhibitors to growth were perceived by their members to be high local authority rates on the one hand and high interest rates on borrowing on the other?
    Mr. Shaw: I am sure that my hon. Friend is correct. With regard to his latter point, clearly the Government will do their best in the management of the economy to ensure that interest rates do not increase but continue to decline on average. With regard to the first point, my hon. Friend will be aware that yesterday we passed a Bill which shows the forecast way in which local authority financing will be conducted.
    Mr. Eastham: When will the Minister recognise the gravity of the position of the engineering industry, which has seen a decline of 30 per cent. since 1979? I draw to the attention of the Government the decline of confidence, because of all the takeover bids, which is having an adverse effect on the engineering industry. What will he do about it?
    Mr. Shaw: I hear the hon. Gentleman's point. I understand it, and I know that in the Manchester area there have been significant contractions. However, I was present at the awards given by the Jaguar company to many of its components suppliers, 44 of which have pursuit of excellence awards. The winners for the past two years have come from the hard-pressed area of Yorkshire, of which I am proud to be a representative.
    Mr. Thurnham: I am a practising member of the industry which last week His Royal Highness Prince Charles described as being not quite all that we would like it to be. Will my hon. Friend confirm that the measures that the Government are introducing should ensure that our engineering industry has every opportunity to take advantage of all the new technologies?
    Mr. Shaw: My hon. Friend is right, and the take-up of computerisation in the engineering industry is a good example of what has happened. There is now much greater take-up of computerisation in the engineering industry, and this has shown a growth that is four times more than that which we inherited in 1979.
    Mr. John Smith: Is the Minister aware of the enormous opportunites in advanced electronic engineering which the GEC-Nimrod project offers? In view of the crucial role that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry may play in the ultimate decision, may we be assured that he will fight for Britain's interest when this matter is discussed in Cabinet?
    Mr. Shaw: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will have heard what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said. It would not be for me to comment on what my right hon. Friend would say, but obviously the matter is of great concern and will be discussed fully in Government before a decision is made.

    Nationalised Industries
    Mr. Michael Forsythasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proportion of his Department's current expenditure goes to support nationalised industries; and what was the comparable proportion in 1979.
    The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Paul Channon): In 1979–80 about a half the Department of Trade and Industry total expenditure was used to support the Department's nationalised industries. For 1986–87, the figure is more like one tenth.
    Mr. Forsyth: Do not these figures throw into dramatic relief the success of the Government's policies of privatising the nationalised industries and insisting that nationalised industries are more competitive? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that this must mean that around £900 million is available for health and education and the social services, which would otherwise be squandered on inefficient industry if we were to follow the prescriptions of the Opposition?
    Mr. Channon: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The success of privatisation and of turning most of the nationalised industries round to be better run and more efficient, with many of them making profits, is a major achievement for the Government. It has had the effect of releasing resources that can be used better elsewhere.
    Mr. Hoyle: I have noted the Government's hostility towards nationalised industries. How will our economy be helped by allowing Leyland Trucks to be taken over by an American or Dutch company? Would not such action lead to a loss of jobs and to the destruction of the indigenous lorry industry?
    Mr. Channon: If it is hostile to nationalised industries to try to make them pay rather than lose money, that is a curious way to describe hostility. It is in the national interest that nationalised industries should pay their way. That must be good for the economy and for the people working in them, who want a secure future. I answered questions on the whole matter of Leyland and the truck industry the other week and I have nothing to add to the comments that I made then. The hon. Gentleman will know that talks are taking place.
    Mr. Gow: Are there any publicly owned industries for which my right hon. Friend is currently responsible through his Department which he hopes will not be denationalised by the end of the next Parliament?
    Mr. Channon: I certainly hope that we shall make substantial progress in denationalising during the next Parliament with the enthusiastic support of my hon. Friend. Let us put steel at the top of the list.
    Mr. Ashdown: Leaving aside for the moment the question whether the general consumer has benefited from this move—particularly in the case of British Telecom—to convert public monopolies into private monopolies, will the Minister explain to the House why he has taken the money that he has saved and squandered it on this year's accounts instead of reinvesting it in Britain in the long term? Is this not simply a waste of the nation's assets?
    Mr. Channon: I do not follow what the hon. Member is saying. I am usually attacked by the Opposition because my Department's budget is not sufficient, yet the hon.

    333
    Gentleman has accused me of squandering the money. I do not know what the hon. Gentleman has in mind. I thought that the hon. Gentleman's party wanted to increase public expenditure rather than to reduce it. Over the past seven years the Department of Trade and Industry budget has rightly been reduced as we have cut down on wasteful expenditure on the nationalised industries. The money has been used to far better effect in the economy.

    Manufactured Goods
    Mr. Evansasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will indicate the nature and size of the current deficit in the balance of trade in manufactured goods.
    Mr. Alan Clark: In October there was a deficit of £0·5 billion.
    Mr. Evans: In view of the appalling figure that the Minister has announced to the House, will he acknowledge that one company that has always made a positive contribution to Britain's balance of trade is Pilkington Brothers of St. Helens, a world leader in the manufacture of glass? Does the Minister agree that there is no industrial logic in BTR's bid for Pilkington? Does he further agree that it is in the best interests of the work force, customers, the community of St. Helens as well as the shareholders that Pilkington Brothers remains an independent company?
    Mr. Clark: It is impossible for me to comment on that matter until we receive the recommendation of the Director General of Fair Trading.
    Mr. Roger King: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the ways that we can close the export-import gap is to produce goods of the right quality, at the right price and delivered on time? Will he therefore join me in congratulating all sections of the Rover Group on showing incredibly increased export potential? Will he further join me in congratulating the work force at the factory in Longbridge in Birmingham on drawing the first quality bonus issued under the present payment scheme? Is this not the way to expand into markets such as Japan and France, where the Mini sells so well?
    Mr. Clark: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the exploits of the Rover Group. Of course, it is quality, price, delivery and after sales service in the manufacturing area that will allow us to increase the rate of expansion. Our manufacturing exports are increasing in volume and value, and that will allow the increase to be maintained and will close the gap.
    Mr. Pike: Does the Minister accept that those of us representing constituencies that are heavily dependent on manufacturing industries want to know when the Government will get our trade in the manufacturing industries into surplus? Does he not think that the EEC regulations affecting country of origin labelling will have detrimental effects if introduced in this country?
    Mr. Clark: It is not the Government's business or responsibility to get manufacturing trade into surplus. Exports of manufacturers have increased in volume and value for the past three years. The gap is accounted for by the vast increase in the level of imports. Imports are the sum of about 25 million individual decisions and preferences by the British people as consumers and
    334
    business men, based on an assessment of the factors that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) drew attention to earlier—quality, price, delivery and the many factors that add up to individual choice in these matters.
    Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: Will my hon. Friend again emphasise the fact that, if they are to export successfully, businesses must have the right price, quality and delivery? It is no good for Governments to try to think that they achieve that success. It is up to the individual firm. In this respect, will my hon. Friend care to examine the success of Ruston Gas Turbines in my constituency? That company exports over 19 per cent. of its products because it meets these high specifications. There is one thing I should like to ask—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member has asked a question.
    Mr. Clark: My hon. Friend is entirely right. The record of Ruston Turbines is exemplary. I know that that company continues to sell in extremely difficult markets around the world.
    Mr. John Smith: Given that it is the unique contribution of the Government that put Britain's balance of trade in manufactured goods into serious deficit for the first time in economic history, and given that we are heading for a deficit in excess of £5 billion in the balance of trade in manufactured goods this year, what action will the Government take to tackle this serious problem?
    Mr. Clark: I am amazed at the way in which the right hon. and learned Gentleman continues to ascribe responsibility to Government and to Government policy. [Interruption.] Very well. Does he attribute blame to the United States Government and to their fiscal policy, which is the very reverse of our own? Their deficit in manufacturing is over £100 billion and has increased over the past four years. They are two totally different Governments with totally different policies. In each case, are the Government responsible?

    British Rail
    Mr. Michael Brownasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the prospects for British Steel.
    Mr. Channon: The British Steel Corporation's recently announced half-year profit of £68 million was encouraging and represents further progress towards sustained profitability. The corporation is now in a much better position to meet the competitive challenges presented by the market.
    Mr. Brown: Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is excellent news? Do I understand from his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) a few moments ago that proposals will be brought before the House after the next election if Government Members retain the confidence of the people of this country in regard to the privatisation of the steel industry?
    Mr. Channon: Yes, I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. I look forward to seeing him serve on the Standing Committee that deals with the Bill.
    Mr. Wrigglesworth: Does the Secretary of State agree that the management and staff of the steel corporation

    335
    deserve our congratulations on the success that they have had in recent times? Will it not impede further progress to have a great debate about the ownership of the corporation? Does the Secretary of State agree that the most important thing now is to wind down the Common Market structure of quotas and subsidies so that the steel corporation can compete for overseas markets on a fair basis?
    Mr. Channon: In general, I agree with what the hon. Gentleman said, and particularly with what he said in the first part of his supplementary question. It reflects the greatest credit on those employed by British Steel. I am sure that all hon. Members will agree with that.
    Mr. Warren: Following the last question, what action are Her Majesty's Government taking to hack down the quota system? Does it not hold back the ability of British Steel to get into export markets in Europe where other companies are not as efficient as British Steel?
    Mr. Channon: I understand and have some sympathy with what my hon. Friend said. Our objective is the restoration of a free steel market. This can best be achieved gradually, without market disruption and with the support of all member states in the industry. That is certainly our aim. We have received one report and an analysis from the Commission. We shall receive more early next year.
    Dr. Bray: Is there any commitment that the Government would or could give that a privatised steel industry would maintain steel production at the five integrated sites?
    Mr. Channon: The position on the five integrated sites remains exactly as it has always been. An assurance has always been contained in the strategy up to 1988. The steel industry, like all other industries, is subject to risk. No Government would responsibly give an open-ended guarantee on the future of any works. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I stand by the assurances that have already been given.
    Mr. Gow: Will my right hon. Friend improve on the answer that he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) and announce that he will introduce the steel denationalisation Bill in this Parliament and not in the next?
    Mr. Channon: That rather depends on the date of the general election, which is not entirely within my gift. I note my hon. Friend's equal enthusiasm to play a detailed part in the denationalisation of steel, whenever it may come.

    Insider Dealing
    Mr. Dubsasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has any plans to seek further powers to investigate insider dealing.
    Mr. Howard: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will in due course be bringing into effect those parts of section 178 of the Financial Services Act which could not be commenced on 15 November, because they depend upon other provisions of the Act, such as those relating to the authorisation of investment businesses, being in force.
    Mr. Dubs: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that studies of takeover bids in the first half of this year often reveal dramatic increases in share prices ahead of the bid dates? Does he agree that the only conclusion that can
    336
    be drawn from that and other evidence is that insider dealing is widespread and that a very nasty smell is coming from the City? Is there not, therefore, a need for rather more purposeful action to bring these people, who are often criminals, to book, or there will be a very bad reputation internationally for the City of London?
    Mr. Howard: Whenever there are indications giving rise to suspicion, they are examined by the stock exchange, which reports appropriate cases to the Department. Any evidence of criminal activity will be investigated by the Department.
    Mr. Grylls: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that anyone in the City who indulges in insider trading now, particularly after recent events, will know that, thanks to action by the Government, there is every probability that he will be promptly prosecuted?
    Mr. Howard: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Robin Cook: Does the Minister recall that in January the House was assured that extra fraud lawyers would be recruited by the Director of Public Prosecutions, with additional support staff? Did the hon. and learned Gentleman notice last week's press release which said that, instead of that assurance being fulfilled, a moratorium was imposed on the DPP? There are no extra fraud lawyers and the additional support staff has been cut. Was the Department of Trade and Industry consulted about that moratorium? Did the hon. and learned Gentleman express a view? Given that lack of commitment, is it any wonder that, although the stock exchange investigates a suspected case of insider dealing every working day, his Government have managed to secure a conviction once a year?
    Mr. Howard: Responsibility for prosecution of offences of insider dealing, which is what the question is about, rests with the Department. The hon. Gentleman knows full well that the record of prosecutions between 1980 and 1986 bears no relation to the situation which now pertains following the new powers which are available to us and which we put into effect on 15 November.
    Mr. Hanley: Does my hon. and learned Friend recall that when insider dealing was introduced as an offence in the Companies Bill 1978 by the then Labour Government the Government proposed that it should be a civil charge? It was the Conservative Government in 1979 who introduced insider dealing as a criminal charge. Does that not show the Government's determination to stop this pernicious crime?
    Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is entirely right. It is important to recall that, during the passage of the Financial Services Bill, the Labour party did not suggest a single additional power related to insider dealing over and above the powers that are now contained in the Financial Services Act.

    Infrastructure (Investment)
    Mr. Altonasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what future meetings he has arranged to discuss investment in national infrastructure.
    Mr. Channon: None, Sir.
    Mr. Alton: Will the Secretary of State confirm that he is of the opinion that private sector investment in

    337
    infrastructure projects should be matched by a corresponding decrease in public funds? Instead of offering that view, would it not be better to ensure that, in projects such as the Mersey barrage, in which private enterprise has offered to put up about £220 million, private funding is matched in partnership with public funding to ensure that some of the 400,000 building workers who are languishing on the dole are given a useful job or work to do?
    Mr. Channon: The Mersey barrage is a matter not for me but for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. In general, I am in favour of private sector spending, as well as public sector spending, on the infrastructure. The House will be well aware of the enormous amount of such expenditure, which has frequently been outlined.
    Mr. Marlow: Given that the private sector is to finance the Dartford bridge and is about to finance the Channel tunnel, is it not right to give the private investor the chance to enjoy the benefits of investing in these great opportunities and to save the taxpayers' money by encouraging the private investor rather than the public investor?
    Mr. Channon: I agree with my hon. Friend. Private finance is certainly welcome, provided that it is cost-effective. We should consider specific proposals on their merits. The new bridge at Dartford shows that there are good cases. There are extra benefits, such as incentives to efficiency, from a wholly private sector project. My hon. Friend made a good point.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: When the Secretary of State said that investment by his Department had rightly been reduced, did he understand that the impact of that reduction has been felt in my part of the country, west Cumbria, where industrial investment has collapsed? Is he aware that under a Labour Government factories were opening all the time every year, and now they are closing? Why does he not restore the industrial assistance that was available under a Labour Government—and to the level that it was in the 1970s—and once again seek the restoration of the west Cumberland economy? We are in desperate need.
    Mr. Channon: The hon. Gentleman is a little unfair. He knows that since 1979 more than £770 million has been spent in the north-west on regional aid schemes which have created or safeguarded 72,000 jobs. There are also other schemes outside my Department. There is the Mersey basin campaign, the derelict land programme, the urban development grant and a host of other expenditures that have taken place. Of course, it suits Opposition Members to decry all that. We all know why they do it. They just do not want to hear any good news when it comes along.
    Mr. Thurnham: Does my right hon. Friend agree that although the criteria for judging public sector infrastructure investment decisions have been much improved by this Government, those decisions are best made by private investors?
    Mr. Channon: Yes, I agree, but there is also a place for public sector infrastructure. As my hon. Friend knows, there has been a massive increase in spending on infrastructure on such things as motorways and trunk roads, rail and housing. National Health Service spending is up 31 per cent. in real
    338
    terms. Capital spending on housing renovation is now £1·4 billion per annum. Those are all massive amounts of public sector money spent on infrastructure.
    Mr. John Smith: Is the Secretary of State claiming credit for spending more money, or for spending less, because he is giving confusing replies? If, as he claims, investment in the north-west has safeguarded so many jobs, why does he not increase the investment and safeguard even more jobs?
    Mr. Channon: I am not in any way giving confusing answers. I was asked a question about infrastructure in the north-west and I gave the House the facts about what has been spent in the north-west. The fact that the figures are creditable is something that the Labour party does not like.
    Mr. Wrigglesworth: Does the Secretary of State accept that channelling investment into such items will increase output and increase the number of jobs rather more—possibly substantially more—than tax cuts, which just go through to consumer expenditure and increase imports?
    Mr. Channon: I hope that we can have both.

    Japan (Ministerial Visit)
    Mr. Forthasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on his recent visit to Japan.
    Mr. Channon: My talks in Tokyo with Prime Minister Nakasone and other Ministers covered a range of trade and industrial matters. In particular, I underlined the need for urgent action to correct Japan's massive trade surpluses and to remove trade frictions such as the discriminatory taxation of imported alcoholic drinks. I also discussed ways of increasing British exports and improving access to the Japanese financial markets.
    Mr. Forth: I very much welcome my right hon. Friend's comments. Can he give the House any further reassurance about the steps that the United Kingdom Government or the European Economic Community can take to guarantee fairer terms and a fairer balance of trade between our country and Europe on the one hand and Japan on the other?
    Mr. Channon: There are several things going on which lead to there being more hope on this front. I do not wish to overstate the case.
    Mr. Evans: The right hon. Gentleman has been saying that for seven years.
    Mr. Channon: Yes, and before then, too. It has been said for a great deal longer than that. The hon. Gentleman should not imply that it is all the fault of one side of the House.
    In answer to my hon. Friend's question, as he will know, the Community has already opened a GATT action on alcoholic drinks. We may have to consider further action under GATT if we do not obtain satisfaction.
    Mr. Roy Hughes: Does the Secretary of State appreciate that Japanese industry has been successful because the Japanese have been wise enough to invest in their industry and in new techniques, whereas our steel industry, for instance, suffered years of neglect under private ownership? Is that not a good reason for the Secretary of State to have second thoughts about any rash privatisation scheme?
    Mr. Channon: I agree with much of the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, but I certainly do not agree with the second part. When I recall that when the Government came to office the British Steel Corporation was losing about £600 million a year, I find the hon. Gentleman's remark astonishing.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: I call Mr. Beaumont-Dark.
    Mr. Beaumont-Dark: God bless you, Mr. Speaker.
    Does my right hon. Friend accept that, for the past seven years, we have been promised that, in one way or another, the Japanese will do better? The more Mr. Nakasone weeps about wishing to be loved, the more the balance of trade goes against us. Have we told the Japanese that we are prepared to take swift and strong action to stop one industry after another being ruined by Japan's unfair trade practices?
    Mr. Channon: My hon. Friend will understand that I have made no rash promises to the House—[Laughter.]Nor do I think that is an especially funny remark. I am trying to be absolutely frank and realistic. My hon. Friend is entirely right to make those comments, which have widespread support in the House. As to the general position, we shall have to take action under the GATT, perhaps on a range of matters. As for the specific issues, we may have to consider ensuring reciprocity in financial services. I shall have reciprocal powers to deal with this matter early next year and I shall not hesitate to use them if we do not get proper access to the Japanese financial markets.

    Manufacturing Industry
    Mr. George Howarthasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he next intends to meet the Trades Union Congress to discuss investment in manufacturing industry.
    Mr. Giles Shaw: My right hon. Friend and I meet the TUC regularly at the National Economic Development Council, where matters relevant to improving industrial performance are discussed. I have no plans for a separate meeting on this subject.
    Mr. Howarth: If and when the Minister has a separate meeting on the subject, will he discuss the loss of manufacturing jobs at BICC in my constituency, especially the 55 jobs that have been lost in the high technology fibre optics unit—a unit which has a fine record of quality, price and delivery?
    Mr. Shaw: I suspect that that is the hon. Gentleman's first question in the House, and I welcome him warmly to Question Time. I note what he said about BICC and I fully recognise its substantial record of quality and delivery of excellent merchandise. I shall have to examine the details of the point that he makes and I shall write to him about it.
    Mr. Allan Stewart: If my hon. Friend meets the TUC, will he point out that, among other things, only yesterday the Secretary of State for Scotland announced a substantial increase in the provision for regional development grants? That is a direct consequence of manufacturing investment being much higher than was forecast. Does that not demonstrate how misleading is much of the nonsense talked about deindustrialisation?
    Mr. Shaw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He is right. Investment decisions are essentially for industry itself. The
    340
    real rate of return of 7 per cent. on manufacturing investment last year was the highest since 1973. The growth in manufacturing output has resumed and next year it is forecast to increase by 4 per cent.
    Mr. Janner: When the Minister discusses matters with the TUC, will he inquire why an area such as Leicester, where industrial relations have always been very good, is still in the throes of industrial misery in manufacturing, especially in the traditional industries? Why does the Secretary of State say that it is not the Government's business to promote British industry when the revival of industry lies in the hands of the Government, who must decide how, when and where they will put money into it? Unfortunately, they are not doing that now.
    Mr. Shaw: I understand the hon. and learned Gentleman's anxiety about the traditional industries in Leicester, in which hosiery and clothing have played a large part. In the first six months of 1986, the export performance of the hosiery and knitwear industry has shown a significant growth over the same period last year. The hon. and learned Gentleman will also recognise the Government's achievement in renegotiating, largely through the efforts of my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade, a multi-fibre arrangement for a further five years. Those are the strategic changes necessary to help the hon. and learned Gentleman's constituents to resume their industrial growth.
    Mr. Cash: Will my hon. Friend note that he could reasonably advise the TUC to ensure that the trustees of the pension fund of the trade union movement play their part in investing properly in British manufacturing and commercial interests?
    Mr. Shaw: I should very much welcome further investment by the TUC in British industry, but I also welcome some of the decisions that it took at its recent conference. My hon. Friend will no doubt share with me the joy that the secretary of the Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen, Mr. Ray Buckton, has now been replaced on the executive by the secretary of the Musicians Union.
    Mr. Williams: During the recent insider debate the Under-Secretary of State said that it was unfair to judge the failure of the Government's manufacturing investment programme by the 6 per cent. fall in the last quarter. A few moments later he also said that it was unfair to judge the Government's policy and failures by the fact that, in the long term, manufacturing investment remains 17 per cent. below the level that the Government inherited. Therefore, may I ask the Minister, in the spirit of good will that exists immediately before Christmas, to take his pick? Would he like to quote to the House any 12-month period since 1979 in which manufacturing investment has been even within 15 per cent. of the level which the Government inherited?
    Mr. Shaw: I shall respond to the right hon. Gentleman's yuletide thoughts, but I think he will recognise that all investment moves in cycles. The pattern of industrial investment is cyclical. All I would say is that the present climate, created largely by the Government's policies, has meant that industrial investment is now flowing into more fertile areas with a profitable and reasonable rate of return on it.

Supplementary Benefit (Mortgage Interest)
3.31 pm
The Minister for Social Security and the Disabled (Mr. John Major): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement on the arrangements for the payment of mortgage interest through the supplementary benefit system. As the House will know, 18 months ago, in the Green Paper "Reform of Social Security", the Government declared their intention to examine arrangements for reducing supplementary benefit help with mortgage interest. This was confirmed last December in the White Paper. We said then that we would discuss with building societies and others how we might take this forward.
In May, following those discussions, we referred proposals to the Social Security Advisory Committee for consultation. The main change was designed to limit the amount of benefit payable during the first six months only of a claim to supplementary benefit.
We have now considered the report of the SSAC and other comments and laid draft regulations before the House today that embody the Government's decisions. The committee's report has also been laid, together with the Government's response to it.
The Government have decided to proceed with the principle of limiting supplementary benefit assistance to mortgage interest but to make two significant modifications to our consultative proposals. First, the period in which only half the mortgage interest payable will count in assessing entitlement to supplementary benefit will be reduced from the six months originally proposed to four months. The regulations actually refer to 16 weeks. Thereafter, the full amount of mortgage interest due will again become eligible for payment. Secondly, we have accepted entirely the SSAC's recommendation that action should be taken to avoid creating a "mortgage interest trap" and the draft regulations have been amended to achieve this. That will help some people to qualify for supplementary benefit payments after 16 weeks who might otherwise not have been able to qualify at all.
The draft regulations also include changes to tighten up the payment of benefit in cases where a home is also used for business purposes, where the mortgage includes a business loan, or where a home is unreasonably expensive. The SSAC has supported all those proposals and we are carrying them through. Our intention is to bring the changes into operation on 26 January 1987.
There will be an opportunity to debate the regulations shortly, but there are several matters that I wish to draw to the attention of the House concerning the main change. First, it will affect only new cases. Secondly, the changes will mainly affect short-term claimants. Fifty per cent. of unemployed people leave the register within three months. Thirdly, the draft regulations reflect several important safeguards and improvements. No one over 60 will be affected; those whose claims are longer lasting will get full help after 16 weeks and extra help with interest on any arrears arising from this restriction. There is also a linking rule between claims to protect people who go on and off benefit and a special disregard of income from mortgage protection policies. Fourthly, the reduction in expenditure will be about £23 million compared with £30 million under
342
the original proposals. Finally, we shall be encouraging and helping claimants to make early contact with their lenders to avoid difficulties. I should like to stress to the House that the SSAC has acknowledged in its report that the changes should not bring significant financial hardship to the majority of claimants affected. It was, of course, commenting in the context of the six months' restriction and not the lesser 16 weeks now proposed. Moreover, the Building Societies Association has indicated that it will respond to changes sympathetically and responsibly. These are welcome and important assurances. I hope, therefore, that, with the safeguards and concessions I have described, the House will recognise that the Government have struck a fair and reasonable balance between the borrower, the lender and the taxpayer.
Mr. Michael Meacher: Is the Minister aware that this punitive and shameful proposal, despite its minor and entirely unpersuasive limitation to four months, will still push 90,000 families deep into debt, leading to eviction and, no doubt, often to marital breakdown? Is he further aware that the Government's brutal message this Christmas to the unemployed is that they will be deliberately kicked when they are down, losing not only their jobs but, most likely, their homes?
Is it not symbolic of this Government's double standards that they are offering £35 a week to the Prime Minister to buy her half-million-pound mansion in Dulwich, while at the same time they are threatening the unemployed, the sick and the disabled on the poverty line with the loss of their homes? Is it not one law for the rich and another law for the poor, with a vengeance, that last year this Government gave £370 million in mortgage interest tax relief to owner-occupiers on incomes of over £30,000 a year and that now they are insisting on going even to the length of causing homelessness in order to claw back just £23 million from those on the poverty line?
Does the Minister comprehend what will happen to families on the dole under this proposal? Is he aware that a family consisting of husband, wife and two children with a £16,000 mortgage will have to find, under the proposal, out of supplementary benefit of £70 a week, an additional £17 a week, which is nearly a quarter of their weekly income? Is he aware tha a couple with a baby and a £30,000 mortgage—like many in the south-east—will have to find under this proposal an additional £32 a week, which is equal to 57 per cent. of their income on supplementary benefit?
Is he also aware that this is bound to lead to a huge increase in mortgage arrears and that repossession of homes by building societies, which has already increased by 700 per cent. under this Government since 1979, is likely, under this proposal, to reach 50,000 a year? Is that not only cruel but a false economy, too, when the costs of mortgage repossession often fall on the public purse, because families are then allocated local authority accommodation under the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977?
Is the net saving, therefore, not likely to be even more piffling than the Government's estimated £23 million?
The Government justify their action on two main grounds: first, that mortgage interest payments to those on the dole are the most generous in the world. How does that square with the Minister's answer to me when he said:
"We have no detailed comprehensive information about the assistance with mortgage interest payments given to persons receiving social assistance in all European

343
Community and Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries".—[Official Report, 26 June 1986; Vol. 100, c. 293.]
Secondly, the Government justify their proposal by saying that the unemployed are in a relatively favourable position compared with low-paid families in work. But why then do the Government not concentrate more aid on the low paid in work with mortgages—for example, the £320 million that could be transferred in mortgage interest tax relief, if that were limited to the basic rate of income tax?
Is the Minister further aware that the Social Security Advisory Committee, which is his own advisory committee, has stated:
"We do not think a scheme of this kind could be justified at all unless the building societies and other mortgage-giving bodies were prepared to give comprehensive assurances about the availability of rescheduling".
Will the Minister say whether he has had such comprehensive assurances? Will he confirm—[HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."] Will the Minister confirm that the Building Societies Association has not had any consultation with the Government on the proposals since it gave its views to the SSAC this summer, when it was strongly opposed? Is the Minister aware that nobody in the field supports the proposal—not the building societies, the finance houses, the local authorities, the National Consumer Council, or the independent Institute of Housing, or indeed even Conservatives on the Benches behind the hon. Gentleman, who have the wit to see that the proposal cuts clean across the right to buy?
Mr. John Heddle: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Meacher: Does this not finally show—
Mr. Heddle: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Meacher: Does this not finally show that the Government's rhetoric about a home-owning democracy is a disreputable sham when it applies only to those in work? This proposal—
Mr. Heddle: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Meacher: This proposal will leave thousands of families in the new year without jobs, without homes and without hope, and it should be withdrawn immediately.
Mr. Major: I had thought for a moment that the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) was seeking to talk the measure out, but alas he cannot do that. I must say to him, in all charity, that I find his guise as the homeowners' friend difficult to take in view of his record and the attitude of the Labour party on mortgage interest relief which he has again attacked in the past few minutes. That was rather curious.
Let me respond as follows to the specific points that the hon. Gentleman made. He said that there was no consultation after the matter was referred to the SSAC. He will be aware that the purpose of referring the matter to the SSAC is so that it may consult and report. For that reason, our consultations were held before reference. I can confirm that we consulted widely before reference.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned 90,000 families. Our estimate is that the average number of families affected would be less than that at any one time, probably—
Mr. Max Madden: How many?
Mr. Major: If the hon. Gentleman will listen, he will find out how many. It is probably 75,000.
344
With regard to eviction and repossessions, I can confirm that the Building Societies Association has assured us that it proposes to act responsibly and sympathetically. I remind Opposition Members that it was not the attitude of the Building Societies Association or other major lenders to foreclose during the 12 months of the miners' strike when interest was not being paid. I see no reason to suppose that they will not act equally responsibly on this occasion.
On losses, we expect that those who are unable to meet the second half of mortgage interest payments will have it aggregated to the capital debt, and that sum will be wholly eligible for mortgage interest relief at the end of the four-month period. The hon. Gentleman, in making his wild assertions, overlooked the fact that 50 per cent. of the mortgage interest will continue to be paid on an aggregating capital asset from the first day that supplementary benefit is admissible, and that after 16 weeks, 100 per cent. of the mortgage interest will be payable.
The hon. Gentleman sarcastically referred to the observation that our supplementary benefit scheme for assistance with mortgage interest was the most generous in the world, and asked me for my source. It was not a Government source, but the Building Societies Association, that made that observation.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the relationship with mortgage interest relief. I am surprised that he does not appreciate the difference between the two propositions. However, I note yet again that his party has shown its antagonism to home ownership and mortgage interest relief.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We have a very long day ahead of us. This statement is important, but there is to be a debate afterwards. If hon. Members put their questions briefly, it may lead to briefer answers.
Mr. Richard Alexander: But are not my hon. Friend and the Government being just a little mean over this proposal? At a time when we are spending untold millions whenever the EEC asks for money and some £2,000 million on an airborne early warning system that the RAF does not really want, need we really be doing this to those whose cup of misfortune is already very full?
Mr. Major: I do not accept that it is unreasonable to expect those who are acquiring a capital asset to meet a proportion of the interest charges for a limited period. That is what we propose.
Mr. Charles Kennedy: Although the Minister has shown some comprehension of the anxiety expressed by the SSAC and his partial climbdown this afternoon is welcome, will he clarify the fifth paragraph of his statement and what he defines as a home that is "unreasonably expensive"? Does he accept that the statement and the principle that it embodies stand in stark contrast to his Government's trumpeting about wanting to create a property-owning democracy? We now see that property-owning democracy for what it is—under the Tories, people can have the right to buy, but that does not mean the right to keep.
Mr. Major: The hon. Gentleman overlooks the fact that more people own homes under this Government than ever conceived of it some years ago, and that that is a

345
continuing trend. He asked about the "unreasonably expensive" proposition, but he will be aware of the provisions that have long existed in the supplementary benefit scheme in that regard. The new proposition is supported by the SSAC and seeks primarily and almost wholly to bring supplementary benefit into line with housing benefit provision.
Dame Jill Knight: Does my hon. Friend agree that, despite the Opposition's synthetic rage and push-button ranting and the gentle concerns expressed by some of my colleagues, 50 per cent. of the mortgage is to be paid immediately from supplementary benefit and, after only 16 weeks, 100 per cent. is to be paid? Does my hon. Friend realise that there are people outside the House and perhaps even some hon. Members who recognise that he has a duty to balance the needs of individual responsibility, the social security system and the taxpayer? I believe that my hon. Friend has succeeded in doing that this afternoon.
Mr. Major: I think that my hon. Friend has spoken for many people. We seek to strike a fair balance between the borrower, the lender and the taxpayer, and that underpinned my statement.
Mr. Frank Field: Will the Minister give an undertaking that no family will be made homeless as a result of this move? Will he also respond to Mr. Speaker's request that we should speed up proceedings by giving a yes or no answer?
Mr. Major: No Minister in any Government, at any time, would be so unwise as to give such an assurance.
Mr. Field: Then the answer is no.
Mr. Major: I reiterate that, throughout the miners' strike, the major lenders of mortgages did not foreclose and they will act in a similarly responsible way should the occasion now arise.
Mr. Roger Sims: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the SSAC is a completely independent body, which has not in the past been averse to criticising Government measures when it felt so inclined? Will he also confirm that in this case the committee said that the six-month period would not cause hardship, so it is unlikely that the four-month period will? That puts into context the gross and extravagantly long over-reaction of the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher).
Mr. Major: My hon. Friend is right on both points. I confirm the independence of the SSAC, just as its own reports regularly do. My hon. Friend has correctly quoted its view about a six-month restriction, and we have lessened the period substantially.
Mr. Nick Raynsford: Does not the Minister agree that, during the lifetime of this Government, the number of households in serious arrears with building society mortgages—that is, more than six months in arrears—has grown from about 8,000 to more than 66,000 currently? Does he also agree that the number of people homeless as a result of mortgage arrears has risen to the point where 10 per cent. of all homeless households accepted by local authorities are homeless because of mortgage arrears and that this measure will make life worse for those people in difficulties? If the Government
346
had wanted to make savings they might have done so by restricting mortage tax relief—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."] listen—to those who are receiving that relief at rates above the standard rate, as is proposed by the Labour party. A saving of £320 million could be achieved by that means without penalising anyone on incomes below £20,000 a year. That would have been a way of making savings without penalising the poorest and without the risk of increasing homelessness.
Mr. Major: I am grateful yet again to the hon. Gentleman for emphasising the innate hostility of the Labour party to mortgage interest relief. The fact is that this is a limited measure for a limited time, with a limited impact. The underlying proposition that the hon. Gentleman has to bear in mind is that less than one quarter of 1 per cent. of families out of 6·75 million mortgages are subject to repossession at any one time.
Mr. Stephen Dorrell: Does my hon. Friend accept that the flexibility that he has shown in the face of criticisms that were widely felt at the original proposal is welcome? Can he say a little more about the linking proposal that he mentioned in his original statement? What safeguards will exist to protect the position of somebody who takes short-term work to ensure that there is not a major disincentive if somebody working for three months then loses his entitlement to supplementary benefit when he goes back on benefit?
Mr. Major: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his earlier remarks. We are instituting an eight-week linking rule for those who go on and off benefit for precisely the underlying reason mentioned by my hon. Friend.
Mr. James Lamond: Did the information that was circulated by the Tory party when it was trying to lull people into buying their own homes make any mention of the intention of the Government to renege on their responsibilities and to make those who bought their own homes, instead of drawing the unemployment benefit to which they were entitled and for which they had paid, go cap in hand to the building societies hoping that they would pick up the responsibilities that rightly belong to the Government?
Mr. Major: It is a curious expression to refer to people being "lulled" into doing what they most wish to do. I observe once again the curious diversity of views on home ownership on the Labour Benches. On the Government's commitment, I remind the hon. Gentleman that 50 per cent. of mortgage interest will be payable from the first day that people go on to supplementary benefit and 100 per cent. will be paid from 16 weeks. That is a fair balance between borrower, lender and taxpayer, and we will stick to it.
Mr. Robert McCrindle: Is the Minister aware that, while we accept the substantial modifications that he has announced this afternoon, some hon. Members remain concerned that the effect of these measures will land entirely on those who are buying their property and that those who are renting will be left entirely unaffected? At a time when many of the properties concerned will be council properties, which the Government have successfully urged people to purchase, is my hon. Friend quite certain that the announcement he has made this afternoon sits happily with our movement towards a property-owning democracy?
Mr. Major: I understand my hon. Friend's reservations. However, he must bear in mind that those who are buying property are aggregating a capital gain; that is a clear distinction between purchase and renting.
Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Does the Minister realise that for people in constituencies such as mine, where unemployment is over 20 per cent. and where people have been on low incomes, there is no capital gain at this time, but that in fact, there has been a drop in house values? One building society in the town of Caernarfon has 50 borrowers who cannot afford to repay their mortgages but cannot sell the house in order to buy off the mortgage. In those circumstances, does the Government's proposal today not make the situtation that much worse for people who really are facing up to great personal and family difficulties at an extremely difficult time?
Mr. Major: The hon. Gentleman raises a particular set of circumstances which currently exist in a limited number of areas. We have materially modified the original proposals and done all that we can through the Building Societies Association and others to ensure that repossessions and evictions do not take place. We think that we have struck a fair balance, and we believe that that will be shown to be so in due course.
Mr. Michael Stern: Does my hon. Friend agree that his statement today will be especially welcomed as fair by people with low incomes from work who live next door to someone going through a short period of unemployment and regard it as grossly unfair that the latter should receive much greater help from the state?
Mr. Major: My hon. Friend is entirely right. We had that argument of equity in mind when we framed the proposals.
Mr. John Fraser: Yes or no—do the building societies support the proposal?
Mr. Major: The hon. Gentleman may ask questions in the way that he wishes, but I shall answer them in the way that I wish. If he wants to know the views of the Building Societies Association, I suggest that he asks it.
Mr. Harry Greenway: Is my hon. Friend aware that when he launched his first initiative I visited a jobcentre to discuss the proposal with professionals who counsel people immediately out of work and looking for jobs and I was surprised to find that they regarded the principle as right? Will my hon. Friend comment on that?
Mr. Major: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that information. I repeat what I said a moment ago. I believe that many people outside the House will regard this principle as right.
Mr. David Winnick: Why should people who are largely the victims of the Government's economic policies be punished in this way? Is the Minister aware that in the west midlands large-scale redundancies continue and many families who become unemployed will be hard hit and penalised by what might be described as this Tory new year present for the jobless? Was the Secretary of State too ashamed to make the statement himself? Why did he send—[HON. MEMBERS: "The
348
monkey."] Why did he send his messenger boy? Why does not the Secretary of State have the courage to make this statement which penalises and punishes the unemployed?
Mr. Major: The hon. Gentleman's charm is legendary in the House.
Mr. Winnick: Answer the question.
Mr. Major: He has about as much charm as a puff adder, as he has shown yet again today.
Mr. Winnick: Where is Fowler?
Mr. Major: The hon. Gentleman's question was based on a false premise and the remainder was unworthy of an answer.
Mr. Keith Raffan: Does my hon. Friend accept that, despite the welcome changes that he has made, the regulations will be bound to increase anxiety among those out of work when they are at their most vulnerable, when they first become unemployed? Does he agree that the Government having rightly and successfully encouraged home ownership, must accept as a consequence of that policy the increase in benefit expenditure on mortgage interest payments?
Mr. Major: It is because of representations of the kind that my hon. Friend has just made, which he has also made previously, that we have made the substantial changes announced today.
Mr. Peter Pike: What is the Government's main objective in this proposal? Is it fairness, as they claim, or is it to save money regardless of the people to whom it brings poverty? If the aim is fairness, why do the Government not limit mortgage interest relief to the standard rate of tax and thus save a far greater sum than that announced today?
Mr. Major: Three substantial propositions underline what I have said today. First, we wish to strike a fair and reasonable balance between borrower, lender and taxpayer. Secondly, we do not think it unreasonable to expect people acquiring a capital asset to meet a proportion of the interest charges for a limited period. Thirdly, we are keen to establish equity between those in and out of work on similar incomes—[Interruption.] If the right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) continues to babble like a monkey on a stick, I should prefer him to get to his feet and ask a question.
Mr. Robin Squire: I apologise for missing the beginning of my hon. Friend's statement, which I shall read with interest. I unreservedly welcome the reduction from six weeks to four weeks, but as a humane man my hon. Friend will surely appreciate that the loss of this assistance coincides with one of the most difficult periods that anyone could face. Will the Government continue to review whether the proposal is fully in line with the policy of extending home ownership?
Mr. Major: I can certainly confirm to my hon. Friend that we will keep this regulation, as all others, under constant review.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does the Minister accept that many of today's unemployed are very apprehensive about taking on a part-time or short-time job with the prospect that it might lead to full-time employment? The eight-week linking rule could well discourage people from having a go at this type of job.
Mr. Major: The purpose of the eight-week linking rule is to meet precisely the concern that the hon. Gentleman has in mind. The hon. Gentleman will know, having been here for the whole of the statement, that, after 16 weeks, the full amount of mortgage interest would again be admissible for benefit.
Mr. Robert Atkins: I congratulate my hon. Friend on being prepared to be flexible and to adjust his proposals in the light of advice from an independent body. Will he agree that, these days, there are more and more people who are unemployed for a short period of time for the purpose of changing their jobs or looking for alternative employment in another part of the country? Does the proposal take cognisance of that fact?
Mr. Major: My hon. Friend is entirely correct. About 50 per cent. of those who are unemployed are unemployed for less than three months.
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I confess that I am surprised that the Government think they will save £23 million as a result of this change. Does that gross figure include the amount of administrative changes that the Department of Health and Social Security will have to go through? Does it involve the amount of extra work that the building societies must put in train? Does the gross figure account for the fact that a lot of the arrears will be rolled over and subsequently covered in benefit at later stages?
Has the Minister given thought to the fact that there are areas—Aberdeen immediately springs to mind—where people have bought houses at the peak of a price rise but now find that property values have slumped. Often, there is no council housing available. These proposals will have a bad effect in some areas.
Mr. Major: This is the best estimate that we can presently make. It may be changed subsequently, but it is the best estimate that we have at the moment. The hon. Gentleman's latter remarks echo what has been said previously and I have nothing to add.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I will call those hon. Gentlemen who have been rising regularly but I ask them to put their questions briefly.
Mr. Gwilym Jones: Naturally I welcome the change which has resulted in the period being only 16 weeks. However, I put it to my hon. Friend that it is the anxiety of unemployment that is most important. This proposed change is putting the sword of Damocles over the family home, yet in every other way we are doing everything possible to help to encourage a return to employment. Does my hon. Friend agree that the real cost to the nation would be greater than any savings to the social security budget?
Mr. Major: I cannot agree with my Friend. I reiterate what I said earlier about foreclosures and the attitude of the building societies and other associations.
Mr. Peter Bruinvels: Since we have encouraged more than 1 million people to go out and buy their homes, can I sincerely ask my hon. Friend to reconsider these proposals? None of the people who lose their jobs lose them through any fault of their own. We have been encouraging many people to buy their homes. Would my hon. Friend please put out a leaflet urging
350
potential home-owners to get a mortgage investment plan so that they will not suffer? We wish to encourage people to go out and buy their homes, but they may feel slightly let down today.
Mr. Major: My hon. Friend is a source of constant surprise to the House, and no doubt he has been so again this afternoon. The decisions I have announced this afternoon are the result of reconsideration made after referring this matter to the Social Security Advisory Committee. I cannot promise my hon. Friend that we shall reconsider these proposals again.
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: I thank my hon. Friend for responding to the concerns that many of us put to him and reducing the period to 16 weeks. I have dealt with many mortgage repossession cases. I am sure my hon. Friend will agree that it is absolutely inconceivable that a building society would attempt to foreclose on a house because 50 per cent. of interest arrears over 16 weeks were outstanding. That is the reality of the situation, not the sanctimonious claptrap that we have heard from the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher).
Mr. Major: My hon. Friend speaks with considerable knowledge on these matters and I am happy to accept his advice.
Mr. Eric Forth: Will my hon. Friend withdraw his previous insult to puff adders? Does he agree with me that the primary responsibility of homeowners, who stand to gain a lot from capital appreciation, is to insure themselves against contingencies, including that of unemployment? Is my hon. Friend aware that unemployment protection policies are available from insurance companies? Has he any comment to make in that regard, in the light of today's statement?
Mr. Major: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those remarks. I am aware of the mortgage protection policies. Our proposals include a proposition that we would disregard mortgage protection policy income when calculating supplementary benefit in such cases.
Mr. Michael Hirst: Does my hon. Friend agree that many people who leave employment receive severance pay to tide them over until they can find other alternative employment? Does he agree that the humbug we have heard from the Opposition Benches is insulting to the independent Social Security Advisory Committee and to building societies? If my experience as a constituency Member is typical, building societies show sympathy and understanding to people who become unemployed.
Mr. Major: My hon. Friend has put his points with total clarity, and I agree with him.
Mr. John Watts: Will my hon. Friend say a little more about the discussions with the building societies and other principal lenders, in particular whether the assurance that they will behave responsibly implies that they will not foreclose during the first four months of unemployment? Is my hon. Friend also aware that any doubts I have about the wisdom of the proposals were substantially reduced by the immoderate and Kinnockesque intervention of the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher).
Mr. Major: Rather than making bland statements, I would prefer to refer yet again to the practical experience

351
that this House and others have witnessed. Recently, during the miners' strike, a 12-month period when mortgage interest was not paid, the building societies, the banks and local authorities did not foreclose.

State Security
4.6 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"The latest evidence heard in the New South Wales court revealing inconsistencies in the earlier evidence given on behalf of the Government."
I must persuade you, Mr. Speaker, that it is definite—although I have not been in any direct contact with Mr. Malcolm Turnbull. Nevertheless, from the tapes, the BBC 7 am, 8 am and 9 am news and the press, it is quite clear that Sir Robert Armstrong, in an earlier intervention, was given information very different from that which he now reveals about "Their Trade is Treachery" being known to the Government on 15 November 1980.
I know, Mr. Speaker, that you like us to be precise in applying for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20, so I shall refer to column 965 of the Official Report on 3 December. During our debate on security matters, I set out the whole timetable, which showed that, six weeks before publication, because of what the Government had acquired from the premises of Sidgwick and Jackson, they knew exactly what was said in "Their Trade is Treachery".
I outlined how, three days before the event, there was a request from No. 10 Downing street for a copy of the book. I mentioned that Mr. Chapman Pincher had said, "I can't give you a copy because if I do you will slap an injunction on me," and how the Government replied, "Of course we will give you a written undertaking in two hours that we will not apply for an injunction." Mr. Pincher said, "How can you do that?" The Government replied, "Oh, we have already read the book." Those circumstances bring me to my next point. The matter is important because state burglary authorised either by Ministers or by senior civil servants—unless we are to believe that MI5 or MI6 was operating on its own behalf—is a deeply serious matter. For the sake of time, I refer to the substantial question I put in column 1092 of the Official Report on 4 December.
Mr. Speaker: One minute.
Mr. Dalyell: The matter is urgent because, although the gremlins who arrange the printed questions have, fortunately, given me question No. 1 to the Prime Minister on 13 January 1987, which asks her if she will place in the Library all correspondence conducted on her behalf between Sir Robert Armstrong and Mr. Chapman Pincher, it may well be that, for the health of the state, we should know before then exactly what really happened. This matter is urgent and important because we have here another example of the Prime Minister instructing her Cabinet Secretary, to put it at its kindest, to be economical with the truth.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
"The latest evidence heard in the New South Wales court revealing inconsistencies in the earlier evidence given on behalf of the Government."

353
I have listened with care to what the hon. Member has said, but I regret that I do not consider the matter which he has raised meets all the criteria necessary for an application under Standing Order No. 20, and I cannot therefore submit his application to the House.
Mr. Alan Williams: I am not challenging your ruling at all, Mr. Speaker, but I should like to refer to the facts that my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) has outlined.
Can you, Mr. Speaker, advise us what method is now available to the House to ensure that Sir Robert Armstrong's evidence concerning Westland is not as flawed, ill-informed, economical with the truth and plain forgetful as evidence given under oath in an Australian court?
Mr. Speaker: It is not the role or function of the Chair to give advice on matters of this kind.

BILLS PRESENTED
  FREE TELEVISION LICENCES FOR PENSIONERS
  Mr. David Winnick, supported by Mr. Allen McKay, Mr. Peter Hardy, Mr. James Lamond, Mr. Dennis Skinner, Mr. Ted Leadbitter, Mr. Ian Mikardo, Mr. Allan Rogers, Mr. Joe Ashton, Mr. Alfred Morris, Mr. Tony Banks and Mr. Roland Boyes presented a Bill to make the issue of a television licence free of charge to pensioners living in households consisting only of pensioners or only of pensioners and minors and to persons in accommodation for residential care and to provide compensation for the British Broadcasting Corporation for the loss of revenue: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 16 January, and to be printed. [Bill 15.]
  AGRICULTURAL TRAINING BOARD
  Mr. Gerrard Neale, supported by Sir Peter Mills, Mr. Colin Shepherd, Mr. Patrick McLoughlin, Mr. Ken Weetch, Mr. David Maclean, Sir Hector Monro, Mr. Alexander Pollock, Mr. Andrew MacKay and Mr. John Home Robertson presented a Bill to make further provision with respect to the function of the Agricultural Training Board: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 23 January and to be printed. [Bill 16.]
  CROSSBOWS
  Mr. Peter Bruinvels, supported by Mr. J. Enoch Powell, Sir John Biggs-Davison, Sir Gerard Vaughan, Mr. Tony Banks, Mr. Don Dixon, Mr. David Evennett, Mr. Ted Garrett, Mr. Michael Hancock, Mr. Kenneth Hind, Mr. Albert McQuarrie and Mr. Michael Shersby presented a Bill to create offences relating to the sale of crossbows to, and the purchase and possession of crossbows by, persons under the age of seventeen; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 30 January, and to be printed. [Bill 17.]
  CROWN PROCEEDINGS (ARMED FORCES)
  Mr. Churchill, supported by Mr. Paddy Ashdown, Mr. Jack Ashley, Sir Bernard Braine, Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones, Mr. John Cartwright, Miss Janet Fookes, Mr. John Hannam, Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith, Mr. Alfred Morris and Sir Ian Percival presented a Bill to repeal section 10 of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947 and to make provision for the revival of that section in certain circumstances: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 13 February and to be printed. [Bill 18.]
  HUMAN RIGHTS
  Sir Edward Gardner, supported by Mr. Geoffrey Rippon, Dr. John Gilbert, Mr. Norman St. John Stevas, Mr. Terence Higgins, Mr. Alex Carlile, Mr. Robert Maclennan, Mr. Greville Janner, Mr. Dafydd Wigley, Mr. Austin Mitchell, Dr. M. S. Miller and Sir Antony Buck presented a Bill to provide protection in the courts of the United Kingdom for the rights and freedoms specified in the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms to which the United Kingdom is a party: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 6 February and to be printed. [Bill 19.]
  ACCESS TO PERSONAL FILES
  Mr. Archy Kirkwood, supported by Mr. Jonathan Aitken, Mr. George Foulkes, Mr. Jeremy Hanley, Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith, Mr. Charles Kennedy, Mr. Austin Mitchell, Mr. Steve Norris, Mr. Jeff Rooker, Mr. Chris Smith, Mr. Robin Squire and Mr. Dafydd Wigley presented a Bill to provide access for individuals to information relating to themselves maintained by certain authorities, institutions and persons; to allow individuals to obtain copies of, and require amendment of, such information; to provide for compensation in certain circumstances; and to provide for the enforcement of these provisions: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 20 February and to be printed. [Bill 20.]
  AIDS (CONTROL) ETC.
  Mr. Gavin Strang, supported by Mr. David Crouch, Mr. Archy Kirkwood, Mr. Laurie Pavitt, Mr. Andrew Rowe, Ms. Clare Short and Mr. Allan Stewart presented a Bill to make provision in relation to Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 23 January and to be printed. [Bill 21.]
  LICENSING (AMENDMENT)
  Mr. Allan Stewart, supported by Mr. Gordon Oakes, Mr. Clement Freud, Mr. Michael Colvin, Mr. Ted Garrett, Mr. Robert Atkins, Mr. Roger Gale, Mr. Rob Hayward, Mr. Robert Jackson, Mr. Ivan Lawrence, Mr. Keith Raffan and Mrs. Ann Winterton presented a Bill to amend the Licensing Act 1964 so as to enable different permitted hours to be specified for individual on-licensed premises and registered clubs: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 30 January and to be printed. [Bill 22.]
  HOUSING (HOUSES IN MULTIPLE OCCUPATION)
  Mr. Ray Powell, on behalf of Mr. Donald Anderson, supported by Mr. Tom Cox, Mr. Robin Squire, Mr. Chris Smith, Mr. Charles Irving, Mr. Nick Raynsford, Mr. David Knox, Mr. John Cartwright, Mr. Dafydd Wigley, Mr. Keith Best, Mr. Michael Meadowcroft and Mr. Ron Leighton presented a Bill to update, strengthen and simplify the law and procedures relating to houses and buildings occupied by persons who do not form a single household; to define categories of such houses and provide standards to apply to them; to clarify the duty of owners of such houses to maintain those standards; to confer duties on local housing authorities to enforce the standards and assist improvements by grants; to extend and simplify local housing authorities' powers to make control orders and compulsory purchase orders on the grounds of harassment; to increase occupiers' rights to initiate improvements and to be rehoused in certain circumstances; to repeal existing provisions relating to such houses; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 13 February and to be printed. [Bill 23.]
  HEDGEROW PROTECTION
  Mr. Robert B. Jones, supported by Mr. Sydney Chapman, Mr. Peter Lilley, Mr. Richard Page, Sir Hugh Rossi, Mr. Peter Hardy, Mr. Allan Roberts, Mr. John Cartwright, Mr. Kenneth Carlisle and Mr. Chris Smith presented a Bill to extend certain provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 and the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972 to apply to hedgerows: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 6 February and to be printed. [Bill 24.]
  OBSCENE PUBLICATIONS
  Mr. Gerald Howarth, supported by Mr. William Cash, Mr. Michael Forsyth, Mr. Neil Hamilton, Mr. Michael Hancock, Mr. Walter Harrison, Mr. Ron Lewis, Mr. Peter Lilley, Sir Peter Mills, Mrs. Elizabeth Peacock and Mr. William Powell presented a Bill to extend the scope of operation of the Obscene Publications Act 1959 and section 25 of the Cable and Broadcasting Act 1984; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 16 January and to be printed. [Bill 25.]
  EDUCATION (NUTRITIONAL REQUIREMENTS)
  Mr. Tony Lloyd, supported by Mr. Andrew F. Bennett, Mr. Ron Davies, Mr. John Evans, Mr. Sean Hughes, Mr. Frank Dobson, Mr. Peter Pike, Mr. Mark Fisher, Mr. Chris Smith and Mr. Terry Lewis presented a Bill to amend the Education Act 1980 to make provision with respect to nutritional requirements for school meals; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 20 February and to be printed. [Bill 26.]

  COMMUNITY HEALTH COUNCILS (ACCESS TO INFORMATION)
  Mr. Terry Lewis, supported by Mrs. Ann Clwyd, Mr. Roland Boyes, Mr. Jim Callaghan, Mr. Brian Sedgemore, Mr. Robert N. Wareing, Mr. Richard Caborn, Mr. Tony Lloyd, Mr. Robert Litherland and Mr. Gerald Bermingham presented a Bill to give the public greater
  356
  access to meetings of, and information held by, community health councils, and for related purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 30 January and to be printed. [Bill 27.]

  UNBORN CHILDREN (PROTECTION)
  Mr. Alistair Burt, supported by Mr. Ken Hargreaves, Dame Jill Knight, Sir Bernard Braine, Sir Peter Mills, Mr. A. J. Beith, Mr. Ian Campbell, Mrs. Anna McCurley, Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman, Mr. James Pawsey, Mrs. Ann Winterton and Mr. James White presented a Bill to amend the law relating to human embryos produced by in vitro fertilisation: and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 23 January and to be printed. [Bill 28.]
  POLICE COMPLAINTS AUTHORITY (INFORMATION)
  Mr. John Fraser, supported by Mr. Chris Smith, Mr. Allan Roberts, Mr. Robin Squire, Mr. Stuart Holland, Mr. Simon Hughes, Mr. Alfred Dubs, Mr. Clive Soley and Mr. Steve Norris presented a Bill to empower the Police Complaints Authority to publish information and reports in the public interest, subject to certain conditions: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 16 January and to be printed. [Bill 29.]
  SOUTH WEST (ENGLAND) DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
  Mr. Willie W. Hamilton, supported by Mr. Michael Foot, Mrs. Ann Clwyd, Mr. Tony Speller, Mr. Jack Ashley, Mr. Ken Weetch, Mr. Brian Sedgemore, Mr. David Winnick, Mr. Tony Banks, Mr. Dennis Skinner and Mr. Tom Cox presented a Bill to establish a South West of England Development Agency; to provide for the appointment by the Secretary of State of a South West Industrial Development Advisory Board; to make provision for assistance in connection with air services serving the Region; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 13 February and to be printed. [Bill 30]
  MOTOR CYCLE NOISE
  Mr. Robert Adley, supported by Mr. Peter Snape, Mr. Terence Higgins, Mr. John Cartwright, Mr. Gordon Bagier, Mr. Robert Hicks, Mr. Roger Stott, Mr. Gordon Wilson, Mr. Nicholas Baker, Mr. Ron Lewis, Mr. Hugh Dykes and Mr. Conal Gregory presented a Bill to prohibit the supply of motor cycle exhaust systems and silencers likely to result in the emission of excessive noise; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 6 February and to be printed. [Bill 31.]
  REGISTER OF SASINES (SCOTLAND)
  Mr. Michael Martin, supported by Mr. Jim Craigen, Mrs. Anna McCurley, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Gordon Wilson, Sir Russell Johnston, Mr. Alexander Eadie, Mr. Tarn Dalyell, Mr. Albert McQuarrie, Mr. James White, Mr. Martin J. O'Neill and Mr. Allen Adams presented a Bill to make provision as to the methods of keeping the Register of Sasines: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 23 January and to printed. [Bill 32.]
  CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1982 (AMENDMENT)
  Sir Edward Gardner, on behalf of Mr. Mark Carlisle, supported by Sir Ian Percival, Mr. Kenneth Hind, Mr. Alex Carlile, Mr. John Wheeler and Mr. Jerry Hayes presented a Bill to give powers to the courts on passing a sentence of youth custody to suspend the sentence either in whole or in part: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 16 January and to be printed. [Bill 33.]
  SCHOOL GOVERNORS (ACCESS TO INFORMATION)
  Mr. Allan Roberts supported by Mr. Robin Squire, Mr. Simon Hughes, Mr. John Fraser, Mr. Chris Smith and Mr. Robert Litherland presented a Bill to amend the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985 so as to require school governors' meetings to be open to the press and public; and for related purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 23 January and to be printed. [Bill 34.]
Orders of the Day

  Teachers' Pay and Conditions Bill
  Considered in Committee.
  [MR. HAROLD WALKER in the Chair.]
  4.18 pm
  Mr. Giles Radice: On a point of order, Mr. Walker. I do not know whether you are aware that the list of amendments was not published until 11.30 this morning. No blame is attached to the Officers of the House—the real reason is that the Government are rushing the Bill through. This Committee stage comes only two days after Second Reading and hon. Members will have had little time to consult people outside or to prepare for today. Does not railroading such as this make parliamentary scrutiny almost impossible?
  The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Harold Walker): The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I have been confronted with the same difficulties. I understand that the exceptionally large number of amendments posed problems for the printers, which delayed the selection of amendments and the posting of the selection. I do not think that there is anything that we can do about it now.
  Mr. Derek Fatchett: Further to the point of order, Mr. Walker. It is not just the quantity of amendments which has caused the problem—
  Mr. Peter Bruinvels: It is the quality.
  Mr. Fatchett: The quality is excellent, and I hope that some Conservative Members come to debate them later.
  The real problem is the fact that we are being rushed into this crucial legislation. We had the Bill's Second Reading only on Monday night and, within 48 hours, the Government expect us to go through the Bill line by line. How is it possible for hon. Members to brief themselves and to talk to their constituents and other interested parties in time for today's debate? If the House's purpose is to scrutinise legislation in detail and to watch what the Executive is doing, we must have the necessary tools and resources.
  The Government's timetable has ensured that Back Benchers who want to play their role will not be allowed to do so. It is no use Conservative Members, who are only Lobby fodder, saying that they have had time to study the Bill and the amendments—we have not. I ask you, Mr. Walker, in your capacity as one who wants to preserve the procedures of the House, seriously to consider delaying our proceedings today so that we have an opportunity to spend more time on these crucial amendments.
  If the Bill goes through unamended, many people will lose fundamental democratic rights. If Parliament does not have an opportunity to scrutinise the Bill properly, it will be held in very little respect. I ask you, seriously, to adjourn the sitting so that we have more opportunity to examine the amendments.
  The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House (Mr. John Biffen): I shall intervene—I hope, to facilitate progress. I regret that, owing to extreme pressure of work at St. Stephen's Press last night, it did not prove possible for the marshalled amendment paper for the committee stage of the Teachers' Pay and Conditions Bill to be completed

  359
  within its normal time schedule. I understand that the process was completed at 11 o'clock this morning, and that copies were available in the Vote Office at about 11.30 am. therefore, I confirm the point made by the hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice). I regret the inconvenience caused to Members, but I suggest that it would be best if we proceeded.
  Mr. Spencer Batiste: Further to that point of order, Mr. Walker. Cannot the real strength of feeling by Labour Back-Bench Members be gauged by the small number of them that have bothered to turn up?
  Mr. Martin Flannery: Further to that point of order, Mr. Walker. The procedure being used today is not dissimilar from that being used after a terrorist bombing, or when a war is imminent or we are sending troops to Northern Ireland. This Bill is being rushed through with unseemly and indecent haste because of the Conservative party's desperation to get it on the statute book. This is contrary to what normally occurs in peacetime. I hope that everybody will take notice of the way in which the Bill is being pushed through. I understand that it will go to the Queen on 19 December. They have got all this organised, but it does not give us enough time to look at our briefs. It is cheating, to say the least.
  The Chairman: I do not know about any arrangements with the Queen. The business for today has been agreed by the House through a motion that was tabled formally. I hope that the Committee, having listened to the explanation given by the Leader of the House, will be prepared to get down to the business before it.
  Mr. Guy Barnett: Further to that point of order, Mr. Walker. There is a serious point, of which the Committee should take note. It concerns the speed of proceedings and the shortness of time available for consultation with outside interests that are directly involved in this legislation. The legislation has major consequences for local education authorities and teachers' organisations. When one considers the date on which the Bill was published, the time available for discussion before Second Reading was short enough. If the Committee is to act as it should, as a representative assembly, it is important for hon. Members, whatever their view, to have the opportunity to consult those whose interests and freedoms are directly affected by the proposals, and specifically the amendments and the new clauses.
  In view of that, Mr. Walker, I ask that consideration be given to the possibility of delaying a Bill which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) pointed out, is not an emergency measure like the Prevention of Terrorism (Northern Ireland) Act. Every hon. Member understands the need for emergency provisions, but this is not an emergency facing the House or the country. Would it not make more sense for the Committee to consider the whole matter at much greater leisure so that we can get the matter correctly settled and make the right decisions? I would be sorry, as I am sure you would be, Mr. Walker, if the Committee made the wrong decisions as a result of indecent and unnecessary haste.
  The Chairman: I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern, but I have to point out two things. First, it was a decision of the House that enabled amendments to be
  360
  tabled in sufficient time for today's proceedings. Secondly, this is a matter not for the Committee but for the House, and that matter was decided last week. It is not for the Committee to decide. It was decided for us by the House. Perhaps now we can get on.
  Mr. Barnett: Further to that point of order, Mr. Walker. Would it be possible for us, in the light of the case that I and my hon. Friends have been making, to move to report progress?
  The Chairman: I do not think that it would be wise for me to consider a motion to that effect at this time. Perhaps the sensible thing would be to move on with the business before us.

Clause 1

  TERMINATION OF EXISTING ARRANGEMENTS
  4.25 pm
  Mr. Radice: I beg to move, amendment No. 2, in page 1, line 5, at beginning insert
  'After the making of an Order under subsection (1A) below'.
  The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 8, in page 1, line 5, at end insert—
  '(1A) Subsection (1) of this section will come into effect after the making of an Order by the Secretary of State, and no such Order shall come into effect until after such period of consultation as appears to him to be reasonable following publication of proposals in the form of a White Paper as to arrangements for determining the remuneration of teachers.'.
  No. 9, in page 1, line 5, at end insert—
  '(1A) Subsection (1) of this section shall come into effect after the making of an Order by the Secretary of State, and no such Order shall be made until after the coming into effect of an agreement with respect to the remuneration of school teachers (and such other matters as the parties to that agreement may determine) agreed between organisations representing school teachers and their employers.'.
  No. 10, in page 1, line 5, at end insert—
  (1A) Subsection (1) of this section shall come into effect after the making of an Order by the Secretary of State, and no such Order shall come into effect until after the publication of a report by the Advisory Conciliation and Arbitration Service as to arrangements for the remuneration of teachers.'.
  No. 11, in page 1, line 5, at end insert—
  '(1A) Subsection (1) of this section shall come into effect after the making of an Order by the Secretary of State, and no such Order shall come into effect until after the laying before Parliament of a report by a Parliamentary tribunal of inquiry appointed to examine and report on arrangements for determining the remuneration of teachers.'.
  No. 12, in page 1, line 5, at end insert—
  '(1A) Subsection (1) of this section shall come into effect after the making of an Order by the Secretary of State, and no such Order shall come into effect before the conclusion of consultation with associations of local education authorities, such organisations representing school teachers as appear to him to be concerned, and any local education authority with whom consultation appears to him to be desirable, and the laying before Parliament of a report of the results of such consultation.'.
  No. 13, in page 1, line 5, at end insert—
  '(1 A) Subsection (1) of this section shall come into effect after the making of an Order by the Secretary of State, and no such Order shall come into effect until after the laying before Parliament of a report by an independent inquiry into arrangements for determining the future remuneration of teachers whose members shall be appointed in equal proportions by the Secretary of State, organisations representing school teachers and associations of local education authorities.'.
  No. 14, in page 1, line 5, at end insert—

  361
  "(1B) No Order shall be made under subsection (1 A) above unless a draft of the Order has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.'
  No. 17, in page 1, leave out lines 7 to 12 and insert
  ', together with conditions of employment, by measures which encourage and promote the full development and realisation of machinery for negotiation of terms and conditions of employment between local education authorities and teachers' unions and associations, or by such other methods as will allow representatives of such unions, associations and local authorities to participate in the determination of these matters.'.
  No. 18, in page 1, line 10, at end insert
  'provided that no such provision shall have the effect of altering the terms of any agreement as to remuneration or other matters between employers and organisations representing teachers agreed before the passage of this Act.'.
  No. 19, in page 1, line 11, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert
  'in the cases of school teachers and teachers in further education, by provisions agreed between, or settled in a manner agreed between teachers and their employers.'.
  No. 20, in page 1, line 11, leave out 'having effect under this Act' and insert
  'agreed between or settled in a manner agreed between, teachers and their employers'.
  No. 22, in page 1, line 12, at end insert
  'and agreed between, or settled in a manner agreed between, teachers and their employers.'.
  New clause 7—Remuneration and conditions of employment—
  'Subject to the further provisions of this Act the remuneration and conditions of employment of teachers shall be in accordance with provisions agreed between or settled in a manner agreed between teachers and their employers.'.
  New Clause 8—National collective agreements—
  '(1) There shall be reported to the Secretary of State any national collective agreement made between teachers and their employers as to remuneration and/or conditions of employment.
  (2) Upon receipt of such a report as is mentioned in subsection (1) of this section the Secretary of State shall unless in his view national economic circumstances otherwise require make provision by order made by statutory instrument giving effect to the provisions of such a report as regards remuneration.
  (3) In the event that the Secretary of State decides by reason of national economic circumstances to make no such order as is mentioned in subsection (2) of this section he shall call for a further report of the Advisory Committee on the matters contained in a report made under subsetion (1) of this section.
  (4) Where such further report is required to be submitted by the Advisory Committee the Committee shall consult:—

  (a) with such associations of local education authorities as appear to them to be concerned, and

  (b) with such organisations representing schoolteachers as appear to them to be concerned

  and shall thereafter prepare and submit to the Secretary of State the further report requested by him specifying the provisions as to remuneration and conditions of employment recommended by them.
  (5) Upon receipt of such further report of the Advisory Committee the Secretary of State shall subject to the provisions of section 4 of this Act, make provision by order made by statutory instrument giving effect to the recommendations of the Committee as to remuneration and shall notify the appropriate body or bodies constituted for the negotiation of national collective agreements between teachers and their employers of his acceptance of the recommendations of the Committee as regards conditions of employment.
  (6) Upon receipt of notification from the Secretary of State of his approval of the recommendations as regards conditions of employment, the appropriate body constituted for the negotiation of national collective agreements between
  362
  teachers and their employers shall adopt such recommendations which shall then formally have effect as terms of the contracts of employment of teachers to whom the recommendations apply.'.
  Mr. Radice: The purpose of this group of amendments is to introduce a period and process of consultation before the Remuneration of Teachers Act is repealed, and to insert into the Bill the collective bargaining that the Bill seeks to abolish. No education Bill in recent times has been introduced in such a peremptory and authoritarian way. There has been no process of consultation with teachers, local authorities and parents about this Bill. In addition, the Secretary of State is trying to railroad this legislation through Parliament. There has been no manifesto commitment, no Green paper or White paper.
  Mr. Batiste: While the hon. Gentleman is on this important point about consultation and the speed with which the Bill has come forward, will he confirm reports that I have received? They say that he was in consultation with the union leaders and some Labour council representatives during the negotiations leading up to the joint councils-unions proposals, and that the objective of those consultations was to come up with a package that would be acceptable to the Opposition but not to the Government? Was the Leader of the Opposition involved in those discussions? Will the hon. Gentleman make available in the Library details of what transpired in those discussions?
  Mr. Radice: Throughout this whole sorry dispute, lasting for two years, I and my hon. Friends have been trying to achieve peace. I wish that the same could be said for the Conservative party.
  The Committee stage is being taken only two days after Second Reading. The time allocated for it is only one parliamentary day. Normally, we take 20 or 30 hours in Committee and controversial Bills take even longer. We are told that the Bill will be introduced in the other place next week. Such haste and lack of consultation might have been justified in time of war or to stop terrorism, but it cannot be justified in the case of this highly controversial Bill. I remind hon. Members that it abolishes collective bargaining until 1990 and puts in its place a system of naked ministerial diktat.
  The Secretary of State has continually sought to disguise what the Bill does. On 27 November, in reply to my question whether the Bill would enable him to impose a settlement, the Secretary of State told the House that it would give him powers similar to those that he already has, but he knew, as he said it, that his reply was misleading. Under the Remuneration of Teachers Act, which clause 1 is abolishing, the Secretary of State does not have the power to impose a settlement. He has the power only to set aside an arbitration award, and then only after an affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament. If there is agreement in the Burnham committee, the Secretary of State has to accept that. As I said on Second Reading, that is one of the reasons why the Bill is being rushed through in such haste. Even under section 89 of the 1944 Act, the Secretary of State could only accept or reject the Burnham recommendations. The Secretary of State was misleading the House on 27 November and he knew he was. He should at least have the grace to apologise for that.
  Similarly, in his Second Reading speech, the Secretary of State showed a lack of candour. The Secretary of State

  363
  did not explain what was in the Bill. He left it to the Minister of State to tell the House—as far as she was able—what the Bill contained.
  Although hon. Members were barracking my speech on Second Reading, there was a sudden period of surprised silence when I explained what the Bill really contained. Obviously, they had not read the Bill, and it would appear that the Secretary of State had not read it either. I want to let Conservative Members into a secret, as I suspect that they still have not read the Bill even though it contains only seven clauses. It proposes that the Secretary of State shall impose his solution without negotiation and irrespective of the suggestions from the advisory committee.
  4.30 pm
  The Bill abolishes negotiating rights and gives the Secretary of State sweeping ministerial powers over a long period of time. He cannot simply claim that the proposals are meant to cover just one year. They are not; they are intended for three years. Indeed, if we count the retrospective powers, they cover four years. The Secretary of State should have the common honesty and decency to admit that. Frankly, I would respect him more if he did. He should take a leaf out of the previous Secretary of State's book. Whatever criticisms I made of him, I never accused him of lacking candour. If he had produced such a Bill, he would have had the decency and honesty to tell the House exactly what it contained.
  The Secretary of State's speech on Second Reading and the way in which he treated the House was disgraceful. I advise him to stop smiling and start telling the truth, which is that the Bill abolishes collective bargaining. Ministers have made a case for reforming the Burnham committee, and I broadly accept it. The Opposition agree that there is a need to discuss pay and conditions together. Indeed, we may have said that before the Government said it. We also believe that the Government have to be properly represented at the bargaining table.
  As many hon. Members stated on Second Reading, we strongly believe that as the Government pay 46 per cent. of the total salaries bill, they should be represented at the negotiating table. There is no question about that. However, they have entirely failed to make a case for abolishing collective bargaining. That is what the Bill proposes and that is the issue that the Government must address.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) made an excellent speech on Second Reading. He said that in a pluralist society, people should have the right to belong to a union and the right to bargain collectively with their employers. Does the Secretary of State agree with that statement? Does he agree that teachers, organised in unions, should have the right to bargain with their employers? What is his answer? Perhaps I should give him a moment to seek advice, although it should not take much advice to answer that question.
  As Ministers will be aware, once the Bill comes into force, 400,000 teachers will have fewer bargaining rights than any other group of public servants. I remind the House that civil servants at least have the Whitley council machinery, yet the teachers will have no bargaining machinery whatsoever. Nurses, doctors and the Armed Forces have independent review bodies that publish reports on pay. The teachers will not even have that. We
  364
  want the Government to accept an amendment about publishing regular reports. At least that would be something.
  No one can pretend that the advisory committee is anything other than the Secretary of State's poodle. Certainly, it is not an independent review body in the normal definition of such a body.
  Teachers' organisations, including the National Union of Teachers and the Assistant Masters and Mistresses Association, that have already taken up the case with the relevant authorities, are correct to say that the Secretary of State's Bill contravenes articles 7 and 8 of the International Labour Organisation convention 151 regarding the rights of public employees, which has been ratified by this Government. It also contravenes article 4 of ILO convention 98 and article 6 of the European social charter. Are the Government really claiming that they mistrust teachers so much that they are to be uniquely deprived of bargaining rights, even if to do that contravenes international and European convention and law?
  Mr. David Young: Does my hon. Friend agree that, if the intention of the Bill is to bring peace to the teaching profession, the imposition of pay settlements is a prescription for disaster?
  Mr. Radice: I believe that the Secretary of State has embarked on an extremely dangerous course and a dangerous gamble. To impose a settlement either now or in the future is a dangerous game to play. I warn him that he may not realise the consequences of his action. I very much hope that there will be peace in the classroom. After what has happened during the past two years, no one wants further disruption. However, the Secretary of State's action is very ill-advised and dangerous.
  Mr. J. F. Pawsey: The hon. Gentleman has quite rightly referred to the amount of disruption over the past two years. Faced with that disruption, the continuing disarray of the trade unions and the lack of agreement between the unions, and acknowledging that my right hon. Friend has a clear responsibility to the nation's children, what else can we expect him to do? Clearly he cannot allow matters to drag on indefinitely. He has a great responsibility and he is entirely right to discharge it.
  Mr. Radice: We shall deal with that issue in the next group of amendments. However, I repeat the point that I made on Second Reading—that I do not believe that there is a great deal between the Government's position announced on 30 October and the ACAS agreement. The difference between the two sides is marginal. If the Secretary of State is really interested in an agreement, he can achieve one. Is he really interested in an agreement? I sometimes doubt it.
  Has the Secretary of State taken legal advice on whether his Bill contravenes the various conventions to which I have referred? I hope that he will answer that later. If the Government can take this action against the teachers, there is nothing to stop them from bringing in further Bills to clobber other groups of public employees—for example, health employees and local authority workers. It would be easy for the Government to remove all bargaining rights from workers in local government and the nationalised industries. Nothing that this Government might do would surprise me.

  365
  I cannot understand why the Government cannot accept the proposals for a reformed bargaining machinery that have already been agreed between the employers and the teachers, and which meet the criteria for which the Government have been asking—that pay and conditions should be discussed together and that the Government should be strongly represented at the negotiating table. I cannot understand why the Government do not eagerly accept and support that agreement. That would be the sensible thing to do.
  We certainly support the ACAS agreement and believe that it should be implemented. Of course, reform on those lines is one thing—we warmly support it—but the abolition of collective bargaining, which is contained in the Bill, is another. The Government accept that bargaining on those lines works well for teachers in further education—indeed, the Secretary of State said that on Second Reading. He has not abolished collective bargaining in further education. If the machinery that links pay and conditions works well for teachers in further education, why should it not work well for teachers in schools? Again, the Secretary of State has not answered that question.
  The Bill takes away bargaining rights not from the teachers, but from local authorities. What is the justification for that? They, not the Government, employ the teachers. Ratepayers, not the Government, pay the majority of the bill for teachers' salaries. Yet, under this proposed legislation, both ratepayers and local government will be disfranchised. Yes, they will be consulted—but the Secretary of State or the advisory body, if they so wish, will be entitled to ignore what they say. They have the whip hand.
  Mr. Barnett: My hon. Friend has raised an exceedingly important point. Conceivably, there could be an extravagant Government with an extravagant Secretary of State who wanted to give in to teachers and pay them enormous salaries. That would place a burden on local authorities that ratepayers could not be expected to bear. The argument cuts both ways. The Secretary of State now tells us that it is his business to decide how much teachers will get—perhaps too little, perhaps too much. Therefore, the employers—the people who pay the bulk of the salaries—are completely in his hands. He can consult them, but he does not have to pay any attention to what they say. Therefore, a serious matter could arise for local education authorities if this sort of legislation were to be passed.
  Mr. Radice: My hon. Friend raises a good point. What underlines what my hon. Friend says is that we need a balance, on the management side, between local authorities representing ratepayers and the Government representing taxpayers. We need to have teachers on the other side. That is the sensible way to go about it. Unfortunately, the Secretary of State seems to believe that he alone, and not local authorities, has the unique insight and wisdom to determine teachers' pay. When the hon. Lady—is she a right hon. Lady yet?
  The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mrs. Angela Rumbold): No.
  Mr. Radice: The hon. Lady soon will be, I am sure. When she was a local authority representative, she had
  366
  quite a few points to put forward and thought that people should take notice of what she said. Indeed, sometimes she said some sensible things.
  I should have thought that the Secretary of State would respect the good sense of local authorities. He should have written into the Bill a way of ensuring that they had real determination and influence on what happens. I do not mean the lip service that he pays in the Bill to consultation, but the giving of proper bargaining rights to local authorities. There is a strong case for that.
  There was no mention in the opening speech—of course there was not much in it—or in the speech that the hon. Lady made in which she tried to justify the Bill, of how Ministers justify taking rights from local authorities, who are the employers of the teachers. With the Bill, we shall reach an extraordinary situation in which the Secretary of State can, unilaterally, impose not only pay rates but contracts of employment, even when the Government or the Secretary of State are not the employer. Again, the Secretary of State says that he alone has the wisdom, the intelligence and the wit to know what should be in a contract of employment and that the employers do not have anything much to contribute. That is absurd.
  If we examine the Bill, the realities of collective bargaining, the realities of the teachers' employment situation, the need to have local authorities properly represented and the need to ensure that teachers are able to bargain collectively about pay and, of course, conditions, we must come down in favour of collective bargaining.
  4.45 pm
  Irrespective of the present position and the inadequacies of Burnham, which are freely admitted by all hon. Members, it is wrong in principle and a breathtaking leap in logic for the Secretary of State to argue a case for getting rid of collective bargaining. That is a totally authoritarian solution to a problem that can be solved in other ways. The way forward has already been suggested—it is by and through the ACAS agreement. We argue for the purpose of these amendments, which is to restore collective bargaining to the Bill and to try to make some sense of a Bill that would otherwise be totally disastrous.
  Mr. Harry Greenway: I was surprised by the speech made by the hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice). For the past two years he has worked hand in glove with the Labour party in a way that has been unhelpful to schools.
  Mr. Barnett: He is a member of the Labour party.
  Mr. Greenway: Yes.
  The general secretary of the NUT has gone around the country often saying disruptive things. At a meeting in Ealing, for example, he said that he was delighted that there were strikes in 14 schools. He thought it was excellent. He was supported at that meeting by the Militant Tendency, the hard-Left Labour councillors, and just one or two so-called parents. That is the sort of disruption that the hon. Gentleman supports. He argues that we shall lose something precious in the form of the bargaining that we have had. In the breath before that, he agreed with Conservative Members that the Burnham committee no longer performed a useful function and should go.
  Mr. Radice rose—
  Mr. Greenway: I shall give way later.
  I remind the hon. Gentleman that, as a teacher, I lived under the workings of the Burnham committee for 23 years. For most of those years, there was precious little bargaining. The teachers' position was dictated by the National Union of Teachers, which had a majority on the teachers' panel. I have never belonged to the NUT, and never will. The NUT has never fully represented the interests of career teachers. That is its great failing. When the teachers' union to which I and my colleagues belonged put forward our views, they were always overridden by the NUT. It insisted on its views being put forward.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Which union?
  Mr. Greenway: I shall not be diverted from the point that I make, even if Opposition Members do not like it. They talk of democracy. For generations, from the teachers' point of view, there has been no democracy under Burnham. We listened to the hon. Member for Durham, North for 20 to 25 minutes. I think that I might be allowed just a few minutes. I did not speak on Second Reading, and it is time that the House heard from a real teacher.
  Since the NUT lost its majority on the Burnham committee, there has been fairer representation of the teachers' views because they could no longer be ridden over by the NUT majority. The NUT majority meant that there was no genuine bargaining on the teachers' side formerly.
  Mr. Radice rose—
  Mr. Barnett rose—
  Mr. Greenway: I said earlier that I would give way to the hon. Member for Durham, North, much as I respect the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Barnett).
  Mr. Radice: The hon. Gentleman got to the point in the end. The NUT has not had a majority since November 1985, so the argument that there is a dominating force overriding all else on the teachers' side can no longer be sustained. My simple question is: does the hon. Gentleman believe in collective bargaining?
  Mr. Greenway: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who has made my next point for me. The NUT lost its majority in 1985, as I said and as the hon. Gentleman acknowledged. It now seeks to dominate the teachers' position by disruptive tactics. Having lost its position democratically, it seeks to impose its view in a dictatorial way.
  Mr. Barnett rose—
  Mr. Fatchett rose—
  Mr. Greenway: I know that the hon. Gentlemen are in the pay of the NUT. They will have the opportunity to put their point of view.
  Mr. Fatchett rose—
  Mr. Barnett: On a point of order, Mr. Walker. I think that the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) should be asked to withdraw a statement to the effect that I or any other hon. Member is in the pay of an organisation in order merely to put that organisation's view in the Chamber. I should have thought that it is
  368
  totally out of order for such a statement to be made. I would ask the hon. Gentleman if he would kindly withdraw.
  Mr. Pawsey: Further to that point of order, Mr. Walker. Would it not be helpful if honourable colleagues were to declare their interests and advise the Committee that perhaps they are representing the views of a particular section of the community or of an industry?
  Mr. Fatchett: Further to that point of order, Mr. Walker. I think that the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) included me in his comments about hon. Gentlemen being in the pay of the NUT. I hope that he will withdraw that comment. May I say that I have never received a penny from the National Union of Teachers. I am in no way responsible to that organisation, nor do I speak on its behalf. It would be useful if the hon. Gentleman got his facts right.
  As for the comment by the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey), if we were all to declare our interests, I suspect that there would never be questions or speeches in the House by Conservative Members, because they are paid so much from outside the House of Commons.
  Mr. Greenway: I did not notice that the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) was there. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] I certainly was not referring to him. The hon. Member for Greenwich knows that I have great respect for him. I think that he would concede that he is a consultant to the NUT. I do not know whether he is paid anything for that or whether money is paid into an association in which he is interested—perhaps his Labour association or some such body. I think that the hon. Gentleman will have to clarify the position when he speaks. He certainly has an interest in the NUT.
  The Chairman: Order. With respect, that is not sufficient. We are all hon. Members. We all declare our interests in the Register of Members' Interests. Certainly, many hon. Members receive remuneration from interests outside the House, but it would be improper to say that hon. Members were being paid for expressing their views. If the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) said, or meant, that the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Barnett) was being paid for what he said in the House, he should withdraw.
  Mr. Greenway: I think that it is fair for me to say that the hon. Member for Greenwich is paid attention by the NUT. I have never talked of money.
  The Chairman: Order. I do not think that that is a sufficient response to my request.
  Mr. Greenway: May we proceed, Mr. Walker? I have never talked about money. I simply say that the hon. Gentleman is paid—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] I have nothing to withdraw. I have never talked about money, Mr. Walker. I said that the hon. Member for Greenwich is paid attention by the NUT. I leave him when he makes his speech to clarify any other aspect in respect of which he is paid cash. I am not interested in that.
  Hon. Members: Name him.
  The Chairman: Order. If the hon. Member for Ealing, North is saying that he never expressed in the words

  369
  attributed to him the views which are alleged against him, the Committee should accept that. If that is what the hon. Member is saying, we should proceed.
  Mr. Greenway: I would not wish to say—
  Mr. Allan Rogers: Sneak.
  Mr. Greenway: I do not think that it is parliamentary for me to be called a sneak by a hon. Member who does not know what the word means. If I implied in any way that the hon. Member for Greenwich was paid money by the NUT, I withdraw. None the less, the hon. Gentleman is a consultant to the NUT. I am surprised that he protests to such an extent. He has a real interest in advancing the views of the NUT.
  Mr. Peter Bruinvels: On a point of order, Mr. Walker. I seek your guidance, because this matter came up on Monday. The hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Barnett) regularly speaks, and we all listen to him with great interest, but he has never declared in any speech, so far as I am able to ascertain, that he is the parliamentary consultant to the National Union of Teachers and whether there is financial help to his association, to his office or to him. I do not care what happens.
  The Chairman: Order. It is open to any hon. Member or any member of the public to obtain a copy of the Register of Members' Interests. Hon. Members are required to declare their interests in the Register. I assume that if the hon. Member for Greenwich has such an interest, it is recorded in the Register. That matter is rather different from the one to which I was drawing the Committee's attention arising from the remarks of the hon. Member for Ealing, North. The hon. Member for Ealing, North has generously cleared up that matter, and I think that we should now proceed.
  Mr. Greenway: Thank you very much, Mr. Walker.
  Mr. Barnett: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Greenway: I shall in a moment. I have not mentioned the fact that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) records in the Register of Members' Interests that he is a consultant to the National Union of Teachers on a retainer of £1,000 a year.
  Mr. Rogers: On a point of order, Mr. Walker. Is it in order for hon. Members to read continually from the Register? Under the name of the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) the Register records his employment outside the House as a part-time lecturer and an examiner of the London Regional Examining Board. Does that put the hon. Gentleman—
  The Chairman: Order.
  Mr. Rogers: How much does the hon. Gentleman get?
  The Chairman: Order.
  Mr. Rogers: I am sorry, Mr. Walker.
  The Chairman: Order.
  Mr. Rogers: It is more than he is worth.
  The Chairman: Order. The hon. Member for Rhonda (Mr. Rogers) has only confirmed what I have said—that the facts are available in the Register, which is available to every Member and every member of the public. Now perhaps we can return to the debate.
  Mr. Greenway: I think that I have made it clear that, until November 1985, the NUT had by its position on Burnham dictated the teachers' bargaining position. There has been no genuine bargaining in the view of the vast majority of teachers. Since then, the NUT has continued to attempt to dictate to teachers by disruptive tactics. That will not do. The hon. Member for Durham, North talked of a loss of the teachers' bargaining position. I regret to say that he was not talking about anything substantial. Teachers may well find that, over the next two or three years, their bargaining position will be enhanced by the Bill.
  Mr. Fatchett: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Greenway: I shall not give way.
  The teachers' bargaining position will certainly not be helped by the Labour party's amendments, which are complicated and will not make the position as clear as it is now under the Bill.
  Mr. Fatchett: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Barnett: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Greenway: There have been enough interruptions. I shall not give way any more, not even to the hon. Member for Greenwich. I gave way to him to clarify his point, and we must leave it at that. We accept that there is continual disruption and shouting by the Opposition. It is well known that, if hon. Members have nothing to say, they shout.
  The present position under the Bill is analogous with the 1960s; it was a little different, but not all that different. There was discussion with the teaching profession, as there is now, on the need for higher pay. Some of us took part in a campaign calling for "More shekels, less Eccles". Sir David Eccles was then the Minister for Education. The hon. Member for Hillsborough was in the profession at the time. He would remember the "More shekels, less Eccles" campaign.
  Mr. Flannery indicated dissent.
  5 pm
  Mr. Greenway: He cannot have much of a memory, then. Sir David Eccles picked up that campaign and forced the teaching profession into a debate similar to the one into which it is being forced now. The debate then, as now, was about paying teachers to persuade them to take the extra responsibility of headship, deputy headship, head of department, apparently small posts such as looking after stock in a school and the many posts in between. Sir David Eccles forced a debate on those issues and the profession could not make up its mind how it wanted to be paid.
  Today we are in a similar position. The basic question facing the profession, which the Bill and the amendments force us to consider once more, is how the profession shall be paid to secure a viable structure in schools which will enable them to run. This amendment will not help that position.
  In my last school there were 152 teachers. It was necessary to pay about 100 of them special allowances ranging between the salary paid to the deputy head at the top and to those on a scale 2 post, with varying positions of responsibility in between. Some of those allowances had to be used to persuade teachers to teach subjects where posts could not be filled by teachers being paid the basic scale. The amendments will not change that position or

  371
  improve it. The Bill is neutral on that. It is up to the profession to continue to work towards obtaining the right structure by arguing for it.
  My final analogy with 1963 is that then, as now, the profession was totally divided. Today, five unions are opposed in one way or another to the ACAS deal. The position is confused and in urgent need of a resolution by one means or another. The amendments will not assist the position and I oppose them.
  Mr. Barnett: I am glad to have the opportunity of following the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway). Normally, as I understand it, it is the practice in Committee to give way relatively freely. I shall certainly give way to Conservative Members, or indeed to Labour Members, if they wish to intervene, according to the more informal procedure in Committee.
  For the benefit of the hon. Member for Ealing, North and anyone else who is in any doubt, I shall explain the relationship which I and one or two of my hon. Friends enjoy with the NUT. I joined that union 33 years ago when I first became a teacher. Indeed, I joined it before I became a teacher, when I was still in training. I joined it knowing that my first job was in a grammar school, where the normal practice in those days was to be a member of the Assistant Masters Association. I believed strongly in a united profession, and the NUT is the union which accepts people regardless of their position in the teaching world—whether they are primary school teachers, secondary teachers or head teachers, and whether they teach in grammar schools—as they were in the old days—or in secondary modern schools. That seemed to be the best way of achieving what I believe, and hope, is the objective of all hon. Members who take an interest in education—a united profession.
  The hon. Member for Ealing, North is a member of the National Association of Schoolmasters/Union of Women Teachers.
  Mr. Greenway: No.
  Mr. Barnett: Oh, he is not even a member of that union. I do not know which union he is a member of. Whatever it is, it is not the NUT. He made that clear.
  Mr. Rogers: If my hon. Friend looked at "Dod" he would discover that the hon. Member for Ealing, North is a founder and chairman of the London Schools Horse Society and the British Horse Society's award of merit. Those are his great achievements.
  Mr. Barnett: I got the impression that the hon. Member for Ealing, North was a member of a trade union. Clearly it is not the NAS/UWT. Whichever union it is, I understand and perhaps sympathise a little with it because of the way in which its views were overridden by the majority on the Burnham committee. I sympathise with it because, sitting in opposition, my views are often overridden by the larger number of Conservative Members. It is only occasionally, on such matters as the Shops Bill, where there is serious division among Conservative Members, that the views of Labour Members—which are sometimes correct, as the views of Conservative Members are sometimes incorrect—are listened to. That is a good example of the way in which we are constantly overridden.
  The union to which the hon. Member for Ealing, North belongs may have been overridden in the past by the NUT,
  372
  but the effect of this legislation is that any union will be overridden by the Secretary of State. No union, however big or small, can, under this legislation, do more than be consulted.
  Mr. Radice: Under the Bill, the Secretary of State will be the union and the management side.
  Mr. Barnett: My hon. Friend has led me straight on to the essential point behind the amendments. As he said, a consequence of the Bill is the extraordinary position of the Secretary of State making decisions on behalf of employers and employees. A Minister or a Secretary of State making decisions on what shall be paid and what differentials shall exist, which must then be followed willy-nilly by employers and employees, is almost unprecedented.
  At the beginning of the Bill—this may be remarked upon, so we had better dispose of it immediately—in the explanatory memorandum, the section entitled "Financial effects of the Bill" states:
  "The expenditure of local authorities on teachers' pay will continue to be taken into account for the purpose of rate support grant."
  That is nice to know, but the point that I made when I intervened during the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) is that the local authority and the ratepayer in that area will have to pay rates not according to decisions made democratically by the local authority or local authority associations, or through the fair process of negotiation, but by the diktat of the Secretary of State.
  The effect of the Bill will be far more sinister than that. As my hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North said, on pay and conditions the Secretary of State is appointing himself as the employer and as the employee representative—the trade union—in place of those who hitherto had those responsibilities. This is the first step in the process of setting up a national teacher service. A vital part of the employers' function will be removed from them.
  On Second Reading we noticed the extent to which the Government's approach was centralised. I am convinced that this is the first step on a slippery slope towards national pay and conditions. The next step will be a national curriculum. Local education authorities will be abolished and decisions about what is taught, and how it is taught, will be made centrally by the Secretary of State, with the assistance of the Department of Education and Science and such consultative or advisory committees as it may please him to set up and whose advice it may please him to follow.
  The Secretary of State has taken that devastating step, completely out of line with the tradition of British education this century. The Education Act 1944 described our education service as a national service locally administered. There was a partnership between the Secretary of State, the Department of Education and Science and the local education authorities, in which teachers, through their representative organisations, played an important part. Those were the three parts of our education service in which decisions could be made. Indeed, in individual schools, head teachers could operate within considerable margins when deciding on the education that they could provide.
  Mr. David Madel: The hon. Gentleman mentioned a partnership stretching back to 1944. Is it not a fundamental truth that that partnership

  373
  has broken down and that the education service has been all over the place since this disruption? No Secretary of State could sit idly by and allow the matter to drag on.
  Mr. Barnett: The hon. Gentleman is right to regret the disruption in our schools and to say that during the past few years the partnership has broken down. I blame that breakdown on the previous Secretary of State. Alas, this Secretary of State is only following the tradition set by his predecessor. When he took office, with his honeyed words about the way in which he would operate the education service, a few of us were deceived about his intentions, but the Bill demonstrates what his intentions were from the start. He intends to operate the education service in a dictatorial and authoritarian fashion, and that is why the partnership has broken down.
  When I was a junior Minister, although not in the Department of Education and Science, I remember how the Department operated in partnership with the Confederation of Local Education Authorities and how it consulted the teachers regularly. It operated by consultation and consent.
  Mr. John Maples: The hon. Gentleman's description of the breakdown of the partnership is inaccurate. It broke down because two of the parties—the school teachers representatives and the local authorities — attempted to impose on the Government what they regarded as a settlement. They tried to exclude the Government from the partnership.
  Mr. Barnett: The hon. Gentleman has got it the wrong way round. That is a new argument. The hon. Gentleman should remember that the Secretary of State does not employ the teachers. The employer in this case is the local education authority.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: The hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Maples) suggested that the Government were being excluded. Does my hon. Friend agree that clause after clause was inserted in the ACAS agreement because of pressure by the Government? There is considerable evidence in that agreement of the way in which the local authorities and the teacher unions have met the desires of the Secretary of State.
  5.15 pm
  Mr. Guy Barnett: That is true, and it is not the end of the matter. There is no doubt that the employers and employees were ready and willing to negotiate with the Secretary of State to try to reach an agreement that would be acceptable to all sides. Indeed, although the settlement that was agreed at Coventry and Nottingham would have meant more expenditure and a series of pay scales that may not have suited the Secretary of State's priorities perfectly, there is no doubt that it was all open to negotiation. The Secretary of State has shut the door on the possibility of negotiation between the various parts of the education service.
  The Secretary of State has insulted the local education authorities and teacher organisations. It is not surprising that a representative lobby, fully supported by the NUT, is attending the House this afternoon. The teachers have been devalued by the Secretary of State's behaviour.
  Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is not trying to skate over
  374
  the point, but he talks about the employers as though they were a unanimous group. He will know that the employers—the local authorities—were not in agreement. Labour authorities may have been in agreement, but I believe I am right in saying that some of those so-called employers walked out. May I repeat a point that was made on Second Reading? Outside this place, most people understand an employer as being the person who pays. Until the Opposition recognise that, we will get nowhere.
  Mr. Flannery: The Government pay only 46 per cent.
  Mr. Brandon-Bravo: Yes; 46 per cent. means paying.
  Mr. Barnett: The hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) is saying that no local authority is an employer. Every local authority depends on rate support grant, so ultimately the Government are the employer. That is the only interpretation that I can put on his argument.
  Mr. Brandon-Bravo: The House heard me more clearly than did the hon. Gentleman. I said no such thing.
  Mr. Barnett: I can only interpret what the hon. Gentleman said in that sense because, as he knows, the local education authority writes the cheques, pays teachers' salaries and pays the other expenses of running an education service. Of course it receives funds from central Government to assist it in doing that, but there is no doubt in my mind that the employer is the local education authority. The relationship is being interfered with seriously as a result of the Bill.
  I am no supporter—indeed, we would not find a single supporter in the House—of the continuation of the Burnham committee. The amendments are an attempt to discover ways in which an agreement can be reached to reflect the shape of our education service, which is different from the service in France or in other countries which have a national system of education.
  Mr. William Cash: The hon. Gentleman should note that amendment No. 13 says that an order should be made following
  "a report by an independent inquiry".
  The independent inquiry proposed by Labour Members is to consist of members
  "appointed in equal proportions by the Secretary of State, organisations representing school teachers and associations of local education authorities."
  The hon. Gentleman has completely failed to observe that the Bill provides an opportunity for genuine independent assessment, whereas that is avoided under the amendment and we shall be back to square one in no time at all.
  Mr. Barnett: That is all very interesting, but we are not discussing that amendment. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the amendments that were called by you, Mr. Walker, he will discover that the amendment to which he referred is not on the list. The hon. Gentleman was wrong to refer to amendment No. 13.
  Mr. Cash: On a point of order, Mr. Walker. The hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Barnett) is alleging that I am not speaking to the amendment in question. I should be grateful if you would enlighten us on that.
  The Chairman: Order. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman needs me to tell him whether he is speaking to the amendment. When he is out of order, I shall tell him.
  Mr. Barnett: I do not pretend to put forward the best arrangements for negotiations to take place. That is a

  375
  difficult issue that would have to be decided as a consequence of consultations between the Secretary of State and representatives of the local education authorities and the teachers' organisations. The House cannot make such decisions.
  It would be exceedingly difficult to ensure that all parties had an opportunity to see that their special interests were properly represented in whatever negotiating machinery was finally set up. However, that is the way that it should be done. If it is not done in that way, and if we follow the purposes of the Bill, which provide the Secretary of State with authoritarian powers, we shall destroy the arrangement and philosophy of the British education system and establish a national education system.
  That may be desirable, and it may be what Conservative Members want but it is not what I want. I have always thought that one of the great strengths of our education system is that it allows room for differences to suit regional requirements and reflects democratically expressed opinions, through the local authorities. That room for difference also has the marvellous effect of making experimentation possible in our education system — for example, the comprehensive experiment and others—
  Mr. Pawsey: The city technology colleges?
  Mr. Barnett: They have hardly resulted from experimentation at a local level. The hon. Gentleman quotes something that has been imposed by central Government. That is hardly in line with the sort of experimentation and educational advance that has been made by people such as the late Sir Alec Clegg and others, who have pioneered new developments in education at local level, which later have had an impact on the education system as a whole. I value localism in education and am against national authoritarianism, and that is why I shall vote in favour of the amendment.
  Mr. Andrew Rowe: I followed the speech of the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Barnett) with some interest. He declared that our education system was distinctive, and so it is. It is distinctively barmy, because any situation in which the person who provides the money is not involved in the hiring and firing of any of the staff, and in which the person who hires and fires staff is not responsible for their day-to-day deployment, and in which the day-to-day deployment of the staff is put into the hands of somebody who neither provides the money nor hires and fires the staff, is a certain recipe for disaster. The extraordinary thing about the British education system is the way in which, over a long period, good will has enabled an unworkable system to tick along. The Secretary of State's proposals are an inevitable consequence of the breakdown of a system that was inherently unstable from the beginning.
  However, the hon. Gentleman also said that he foresaw a dramatic centralisation of the British education system. I hope that he is wrong, and I think that he is wrong for two reasons. First, I have reservations about exposing any Secretary of State—even one with the broad shoulders of my right hon. Friend, or any less robust successor—to a constant round of direct negotiations on the details of pay, year in, year out. I hope that his proposals will be the first step to a radical change in the system of teachers' remuneration, because that is long overdue.
  376
  Secondly, we need a system under which schools are provided with a budget, out of which the head teachers would make the necessary allocations. That would allow them to chose whether they will have more staff and less equipment or more equipment and fewer staff. It is absurd to operate a system that is full of highly intelligent, dedicated, conscientious people and pretend that they are totally incapable of running more than a nugatory budget.
  When teachers complain—as they frequently do—that they are under-remunerated, it might pay them to look at one or two other professions—for example, that of speech therapy. I have some knowledge of that profession, because my wife teaches within it. A district speech therapist with a salary of about £10,000 per year—[Interruption.] It is interesting that Opposition Members—from sedentary positions—pay no attention when one attempts to widen the debate in any way, shape or form.
  Mr. Flannery: I assure the hon. Gentleman that we feel very strongly about the under-payment of speech therapists. We have tabled a motion to try to increase their wages, after many years of struggling to help them. Will the hon. Gentleman tell his wife that?
  Mr. Rowe: My wife follows those matters with considerable interest. My point is not so much that speech therapists are under-remunerated, as that a district speech therapist who, like a teacher, is a graduate, will be responsible for a budget of somewhere between £250,000 and £500,000, on a salary of about £10,000 per year. The idea that the professional confreres of speech therapists, professions such as teaching, are incapable of handling money is an insult to the teaching profession. However, that is an inevitable consequence of the extraordinarily ramshackle system of dividing financial responsibility from personnel responsibility, or from day-to-day administration.
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: I do not know what experience that hon. Gentleman has of teaching and of teachers. Does he agree that a teacher in the classroom wants not money in the hand but adequate resources, adequate time and adequate colleagues with which to do a collective job? Financial administration is best dealt with by other people. Indeed, in some large secondary schools the capitation sums, the accounting and the calculation of how much money can be put into staffing, or how much into the equipment, is left in the capable hands of bursars who are accountable to headmasters. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that is the right division of labour for a professional teacher?
  Mr. Rowe: The divorce of the allocation of resources, however small, which relates to the way in which one does one's job, from the doing of that job, is one of the reasons why so many professions are in some trouble these days. I could not agree more that there is a real need in schools for someone with the duties of a bursar to look after such things as the capital stock, repair and maintenance and the collection of moneys. But the administration of a department, the deployment of teachers within that department and the trade-off between hours in the classroom or the laboratory and doing other things, should be on the basis of having a budget to administer. It is demeaning to the teaching profession that most teachers are regarded by whomever is supposed to employ

  377
  them as being incompetent and not to be trusted with money. The time is long overdue for schools to be run by people who control and understand the resources. That might even breed a clearer understanding of where the resources come from in the first place.
  5.30 pm
  I hope that the change in the nature of the negotiations is the first step towards a decentralisation of the education system and a combining of the personnel and financial administration functions. My goodness me, there is a need for a change in the nature of negotiations which, hitherto, have provided a form of contract which means that, the moment everybody stops doing what they regard as voluntary, the system falls to bits. Anything more absurd than that would be hard to find. For that reason, I shall support the Government.
  Mr. Fatchett: The amendments centre on the right to free collective bargaining for teachers. It was interesting that in two interventions during the debate Conservative Members were either invited to say, or, during the course of their contributions, failed to say, whether they agreed with free collective bargaining for teachers.
  The first occasion was when my hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) asked the Secretary of State whether he agreed with free collective bargaining for teachers. It may be uncharacteristic of the Secretary of State, but he remained silent. There are not many days or occasions since he took over that office that he has remained silent, but on this occasion that was a pregnant and meaningful silence. We now know from his refusal to intervene that he does not agree with free collective bargaining for teachers.
  Another contribution was made by the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway), and, even by his standards, I think that it is one that he may well regret. During the course of that speech, he was challenged by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Barnett) to say whether he agreed with free collective bargaining for teachers. The hon. Gentleman tried to obfuscate the issue. That is not difficult for him because he does that regularly on any issue, but on this occasion he did so as a tactic. It was obvious from that tactic that the hon. Gentleman did not want to say in the House and on the record that he also disagreed with free collective bargaining for teachers.
  The indictment against Conservative Members is strong. We have the silence of the Secretary of State and the silence of the hon. Member for Ealing, North, a combination that means they they are likely to be taken at their word; such weight and intellectual ability combined to give the impression and to lead to the conclusion that the Government are opposed to free collective bargaining.
  We need not take the argument much further, but the argument was made in other terms on Monday evening by the Minister of State. On Second Reading, the hon. Lady accused me of saying that the Government are trying to remove the negotiating rights of teachers. She almost gave the impression, despite all that we have heard, that that was a scurrilous and unfounded accusation on my part. But the hon. Lady went to to say:
  "The Government have not denied that the teachers' unions have a role in pay determination. I assure the House that there will be no shortage of consultation."—[Official Report, 8 December 1986; Vol.107, c. 111.]
  Mrs.Rumbold indicated assent.
  Mr. Fatchett: The hon. Lady nods in agreement and I am happy that she does so. She is making my case and that of my hon. Friends, the teachers' unions and the teachers. The hon. Lady is saying that she does not believe in collective bargaining for teachers.
  Bargaining is a process which involves the two parties giving and taking and coming to a joint arrangement. That is the nature of bargaining. The hon. Lady offers consultation, but she knows, as we all do from the Government's record, that consultation simply means listening, not acting on, agreeing with or moving towards the views that come from the other party. What the hon. Lady said will be recorded and emphasised time and again because she has stated clearly what her right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and her hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North failed to state—she is against bargaining for teachers.
  Mr. Steve Norris: I believe in the right of free collective bargaining, but I fail to see how the frequent references to consultation and the provision for consultation, to which my hon. Friend the Minister referred, combined with the right of the teachers' organisations to take whatever industrial action they deem fit, as that is clearly not proscribed by the Bill, does not constitute just as free collective bargaining arrangements as are available in any other section of industry. It is a travesty to suggest that it is not perfectly retained here, but with the difference that it is now clear to whom the teachers should be directing their efforts, and that is to my right hon. Friend. That clarification is in the interests of both sides.
  Mr. Fatchett: I am disappointed with that intervention. I acquired a warm respect for the hon. Gentleman during the debates on the Education (No. 2) Bill earlier this year. He had a great deal to contribute to the education debate. [Interruption.] However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) says from a sedentary position, that intervention was not up to the hon. Gentleman's usual standard.
  Let me explain why. The hon. Gentleman is trying to equate bargaining and consultation. Let me give him an example to think about from his own constituency. For example, if, in Oxford, Leyland decided that all decisions about pay would be made by the managing director or the chairman of the company, the unions could come along, or perhaps come along—it is not clear from the Bill whether they would, on analogous terms, have that right—and make their presentation. They would be "consulted", to use the Minister of State's term, in that way. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that is a fundamentally different process from that which currently takes place in British Leyland on the determination of pay? Let me describe the process, so that he can be clear before he answers.
  What takes place currently on pay determination is that the two sides, management and the trade unions, sit and negotiate across the table until they come to a joint agreement. The nature of bargaining is a joint agreement; the nature of consultation is unilateral decision-making. If the hon. Gentleman wants to return to Oxford and argue with his constituents and their trade union representatives

  379
  that consultation is the same as collective bargaining, he may be in for a shock and a rude awakening. However, I shall listen with interest to what he has to say.
  Mr. Norris: The hon. Gentleman knows that in any bargaining arrangement that the two sides make, the terms upon which they are prepared to settle are quite clear. Movement towards an eventually agreed settlement takes account of a number of factors, not least the right of employees, subject to the arrangements that are provided for under the trade union Acts, to ballot their members and to withdraw their labour, if they regard the settlement as unsatisfactory. Were the proposals that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science to include a waiver of the right to withdraw labour, I should have more sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's point, but clearly they do not. It is a matter of sophistry to decide whether there is a meaningful distinction between negotiation and consultation. Teachers will be just as able in the future as they are at present to make the full weight of their argument felt in negotiations and consultations with my right hon. Friend.
  Mr. Fatchett: I do not want to labour the point for the benefit of the hon. Gentleman, but as we have a great deal of time it may be worth one more try. There is a fundamental difference between what the hon. Gentleman regards as consultation and the process of negotiation. However, he was almost there; there was a moment when I thought that there was a joining of hands across the Chamber, and we await the intellectual awakening of Conservative Members. At that moment the hon. Gentleman said that one party starts in one position, that the other party starts in another position and that then, through the process of applied pressure, which may be the threat of industrial action or the threat of dismissal by the employer, there is movement on both sides. That is implicit in bargaining but it is not implicit in consultation. It is intrinsic to the nature of bargaining but it is not intrinsic to the nature of negotiation. I hope that the hon. Gentleman takes my point fully and that he will join us in the Lobby when we vote on the amendment.
  Mr. Cash: In the context of amendments Nos. 8, 12 and new clause 8, will the hon. Gentleman explain why the Opposition place such emphasis upon consultation? New clause 8 provides for national collective agreements, and it is implicit in the amendments to which the hon. Gentleman is speaking that there will be consultation. However, he seems to be suggesting that consultation is not very useful. Will he please explain how he comes to that conclusion?
  Mr. Fatchett: I am trying to differentiate between the collective bargaining process and the consultation process in industrial negotiations. If the hon. Gentleman had recognised that fact, he would also have recognised that his intervention was otiose. He may be able to make his point later. We shall look forward to it, and from his track record there is no reason to suspect that he will not make it. I was simply trying to distinguish between collective bargaining and consultation.
  Mr. Radice: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Fatchett: I shall give way to my hon. Friend in a moment. It is obvious that he has something to say on this point.
  380
  The conclusion that can be drawn from the comments on Monday night of the Minister of State, which were clear and distinct, is that she does not believe in free collective bargaining. She believes that teachers deserve only to be consulted.
  Mr. Radice: My hon. Friend has made the distinction between consultation and collective bargaining absolutely clear to me. He may not have made it clear to Conservative Members, but it is possible that they do not want to listen. I do not believe that the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) has read the amendments. Had he read them, he would have seen that their purpose is to provide for a consultation process before the repeal of the Act. The hon. Gentleman is confusing two processes. He would have been well advised to read the amendments before intervening.
  Mr. Fatchett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. I hope, therefore, that we have shown the distinction between collective bargaining and consultation.
  Mr. Tony Marlow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Fatchett: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) because I find that his interventions are always enjoyable.
  Mr. Marlow: How would the hon. Gentleman describe the system of wage consultation over nurses' pay? Is that collective bargaining or consultation?
  Mr. Fatchett: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. I hope that he does not extrapolate from it that I welcome his point. What happens with nurses, and this is why they are so—
  The Chairman: Order. It would be most unwise for the Committee to go into the collective bargaining arrangements for a variety of professions. The Committee ought to stick to the one profession that is the subject of the Bill before the Committee.
  5.45 pm
  Mr. Fatchett: I am always prepared to listen to your guidance, Mr. Walker, because it is obviously based on a great deal of experience. I shall give the answer to the hon. Member for Northampton, North outside the Chamber, not in these proceedings.
  We have made a distinction between collective bargaining and consultation. Now I wish to consider some of the reasons that have been given by Conservative Members as to why the Burnham committee should be scrapped. Both sides of the House agree that the Burnham procedures and the Burnham machinery have failed. Therefore, we have to consider what to put in their place. In one of his more imaginative comments, the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) asked what else could have been done; he said that it has to be, as it is provided for in the Bill. Simply to shrug his shoulders and ask what else could have been done showed a lack of willingness on his part to put his great intellectual powers to good use.
  The speech of the Minister of State on Monday night was full of interesting comments. Those of my hon. Friends who were not in the House on Monday night missed a great treat. Some of the Minister's hon. Friends must have been profoundly disappointed by it, if they were

  381
  not there on Monday night. I recommend them to read the report of her speech in Hansard. She said that the Bill is needed because the Burnham machinery and procedures have failed. For that reason, she said that there must be interim arrangements, involving an advisory committee.
  I say with the greatest possible respect to the hon. Lady that that is a jump in logic that in itself is illogical. She is suggesting that there is no alternative to the Burnham machinery other than the Bill of her right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. That is clearly not the case. The ACAS agreement which is on the table contains provisions relating to a national joint council for negotiations on teachers' pay and conditions. The hon. Lady does not agree with the national joint council approach, an approach which, Mr. Walker, as you know from your past industrial relations experience, is used in very many industries. If the hon. Lady cares to intervene at this stage, perhaps she will tell us why she does not agree with it. She makes the illogical suggestion that there is no alternative to it. I should have thought that she would recognise that there is an alternative, and I shall advance that argument a stage further.
  The hon. Lady referred in her speech to our suggestion concerning the European social charter.
  Mr. Eric Forth: Oh, no.
  Mr. Fatchett: I know that the hon. Gentleman was completely disillusioned by the few years that he spent as a Member of the European Parliament. Perhaps we shall hear about it during the evening.
  I refer to the European social charter only because it has been cited in the context of this debate and the Minister of State responded to it. The Minister said that article 6(2) requests Governments to promote voluntary collective bargaining, where necessary and when appropriate. My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) realised that the Minister had made a crucial point because he tried to intervene to obtain clarification. However, the hon. Lady would not give way. Then she said:
  "The article clearly recognises that circumstances can occur in which voluntary negotiations are not appropriate."—[Official Report, 8 December 1986; Vol. 107, c. 110.]
  In other words, the Government see their way out of their obligations under the European social charter by arguing that the voluntary negotiation system is not deemed by the Government to be appropriate.
  Mr. Cash: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Fatchett: No, I shall not give way for the moment; I will in a minute.
  If that is not appropriate for teachers—that is what the Government and the hon. Lady are saying—the same argument could be applied not just to teachers but to every group of public sector employee. Our debate tonight on the Bill extends beyond teachers' pay and conditions to each and every public sector employees.
  The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Kenneth Baker)indicated dissent.
  Mr. Fatchett: The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head. However, the Government's track record does not suggest that there will not be an extension to other public sector employees. We have already seen from the Government the ability to take away fundamental trade
  382
  union rights at GCHQ. Now they say to us, "But the teachers are another special case." How many more special cases will there be in the public sector before the country realises that it is an attack upon the fundamental rights of public sector employees?
  Mr. Madel: The hon. Gentleman talks about other public sector workers, but in such cases negotiating machinery already exists, negotiations are going on, and there is not the same industrial relations upset in other spheres of the public sector as in the teaching profession. The hon. Gentleman cannot escape the fact that the dispute in the teaching profession goes back many months. Many months ago ACAS offered to intervene, and the unions said, "Not interested."
  Mr. Fatchett: I should like to build on the hon. Gentleman's intervention. He is saying that the argument for abolishing the machinery, which is similar to the argument used by the Minister of State, is that there have been difficult negotiations with the teachers. Are we to believe—I think we are, from what the hon. Gentleman says—that if those difficult negotiations are reproduced for local authority manual or white collar workers, or for Health Service staff, the same decision will be taken? That is why I said that the warning that comes from the debate and from the Bill is not just for teachers but for each and every public sector employee who is in danger of losing fundamental rights. Once the Government are tempted down that road, they will continue on it, and they will continue to attack trade union rights.
  Mr. Cash: The hon. Gentleman is referring to new clause 8. Subsection (2) states that any national collective agreement must be referred to the Secretary of State by way of a report. This is the crucial bit. The subsection says that upon receipt of such a report, the Secretary of State "shall"—not "may"—
  "unless in his view national economic circumstances otherwise require make provision by order … giving effect to the provisions of such a report".
  New clause 8 shoots the hon. Gentleman's argument straight in the foot. This is what the hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) will have to concede, too. Apart from the fact that our clause 3 provides for consultation and Opposition amendments Nos. 8 to 14 do so too, new clause 8 is a spurious and fraudulent attempt to convince people that they are negotiating in an exercise to provide national collective agreements. The let-out is contained in these very provisions. The paragraph contains the words "in his view", so that is not justifiable, and the let-out is:
  "unless in his view national economic circumstances otherwise require".
  Therefore, the new clause is completely worthless. I hope that the unions will take account of that.
  Mr. Fatchett: I think that the hon. Gentleman must have read the point that I was about to make. On new clause 8, he should recognise that there would be collective bargaining and one would build upon the partnership in education. I have heard some Conservative Members say that that partnership has broken down. One will not renew it by adopting the Government's policies; one will rebuild it only by the recognition that is implicit and explicit in new clause 8. That is why the new clause refers to collective bargaining for unions and employers, and that is why the new clause also refers to the role of the Secretary of State. I must move forward—
  Dr. John Marek: Before my hon. Friend moves forward, I should like to ask him whether he agrees that far too much emphasis has been placed on the agreements breaking down between the teachers and the employers, so something must be done. Nothing has been said about why the agreements have been breaking down, and why there has been so much fuss. Is not part of the reason the continual hammering that the teachers have had from the Government—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] The equipment grants have been slashed, and class sizes have been too high. They have been driven into the ground at every possible opportunity. Would not support of the teachers have been a better way to attack the problem in the education system than what the Government propose in this odious Bill?
  Mr. Fatchett: My hon. Friend has made a perceptive point, given the noises from Conservative Benches. He is absolutely right to say that, since the Government were elected in 1979, they have taken every opportunity to denigrate and devalue the contribution that teachers make to society. The Bill is part of that process. The Government have been determined to attack teachers.
  Mr. Andrew Hunter: Will the hon. Gentleman reconcile the fact that the teachers' salary bill has increased in real terms since 1979 with the derogatory point that he is trying to make?
  Mr. Fatchett: I have no difficulty at all. In the three years or so that I have been a Member of the House of Commons, I have listened to Conservative Members at every education Question Time and in every debate. They have attacked teachers as a collective body or as individuals. If the hon. Gentleman popped into the House more often when it was dealing with education business, he would realise that there is no difficulty in reconciling those two points.
  Dr. Marek: Before my hon. Friend does move forward again, if what the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) says is true, that is a result of the Clegg award. The Conservative Government were not responsible for that, and they berated us for leaving them such a legacy. We were proud of that legacy. That award is the reason why the teachers got a decent rise. The Labour Government were responsible.
  Mr. Fatchett: I totally agree with my hon. Friend. It is interesting to look at the history of the dispute and of pay in the public sector since 1979. As my hon. Friend rightly says, in the early months and years of the Government's period of office, every attempt was made to criticise the Clegg award and the Clegg machinery. My hon. Friend is right that many public sector employees welcomed the machinery and saw the benefit of it.
  I shall now move forward in my argument. I almost apologised to you, Mr. Walker, for giving way to one or two hon. Members, but I suspect that some Conservative Members are trying to delay this important debate. I cannot understand the reason for that.
  On several occasions, today and on Second Reading, we have heard the argument from Conservative Members that it is the taxpayer who pays the bill for teachers, so the taxpayer has the right to demand the machinery that is set out in the Bill. That is an interesting argument. I should like to quote from a press release issued by the Department
  384
  of Education and Science on 28 November this year, which was the day when the Secretary of State published his Bill. He said:
  "Taxpayers and ratepayers who pay teachers' salaries are entitled to have a system which produces results."
  Conservative Members will notice a slight shift in the argument. In today's debate and on Second Reading, we talked about taxpayers, but on 28 November, announcing the publication of the Bill, the Secretary of State also talked about ratepayers. I wonder why reference to ratepayers has been dropped in subsequent arguments, and I think that I know the reason. Perhaps the Secretary of State will not intervene again, so let me explain to the House. The reason is simply this. If one wants to have representatives of the taxpayers, our political system provides representatives of the taxpayers. The taxpayers' representative could be said to be a Minister and the ratepayers' representative could be said to be a local authority councillor. We have a system that is based on that principle, and it is called local government.
  Hon. Members may have noticed that this Government do not have any great liking for local government, and perhaps that is one reason why reference to it has been deleted from any subsequent argument. But I suspect that there is another reason, and that is that the Bill does not allow local government to participate or negotiate in any way. The Secretary of State has taken away from the teachers' pay discussions the immediate representatives of their employers—namely, local government. That is typical of the Government's attack on local government. The Bill represents a fundamental attack not only on teachers but on our constitution.
  6 pm
  The taxpayer argument is dangerous, and Conservative Members should think about it before going ahead with the Bill. As my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich said, the implication is that such legislation could apply to all other public sector employees. We now know that the Government do not believe in free collective bargaining for teachers. Judging by what the Government have said, they can foresee circumstances in which collective bargaining could be removed from other groups of public sector employees. We also know that the taxpayer argument could be used to take bargaining rights from all public sector workers. You were right, Mr. Deputy Speaker, not to allow me to talk about nurses' pay, although I am sure that you realise that the Bill has implications that go far beyond the teachers' dispute, and extend deep into the public sector.
  I shall conclude—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I always like to play the populist card, and I realised that Conservative Members thought that this was the moment. I suspect that I shall have another opportunity to speak tonight, and it is always a mistake to have too much of a good thing all at the same time. Consequently, I shall bring my remarks to a conclusion. The other night, however, I said that I would oppose the Bill vehemently because it attacks an intrinsic right in any pluralist democracy—the right to belong to a trade union and for it to bargain collectively on behalf of its individual members. If Conservative Members listen to both sides of the argument, they will realise something that they probably know in their hearts, which is that being a trade union member is of little value if one does not have the ability

  385
  to make representations and to bargain collectively with one's employer. In a democratic society, that is a fundamental right.
  The history of western Europe and even of industrial relations in the United States shows that democratic Governments have tried to further that right to bargain collectively. For example, the Wagner legislation, which dates back to the 1930s, gave trade union organisations the right to develop collective bargaining. It imposed obligations on employers to bargain freely and in good faith with individual trade unions and groups of workers. That legislation was not limited to the United States and has been reproduced in many parts of western Europe.
  Mr. Spearing: My hon. Friend has stressed the importance of unions having the right to bargain collectively on behalf of individuals. But is not the obverse also true? If a trade union does not have the right to bargain collectively, the inducement or need to join that union is greatly diminished. Consequently, the Bill's effect, and one of its purposes, is deliberately to undermine and destroy the appeal that trade unionism has for teachers. People will thus be driven into making individual bargains, which will obviously prove to be less satisfactory to them and will undermine the coherence and partnership of education as a whole.
  Mr. Fatchett: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. In western Europe and the United States, the trend has been to preserve democracy and to build on trade unionism and collective bargaining. The Government are going in the opposite direction. The debate and these amendments are important. I had hoped that I would win some support from Conservative Members. However, the power of my argument has obviously been enough to win me one supporter at least, as the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Freud), who represents the Liberal party, has at last joined us in the Chamber—[Interruption.] I see that he is just disappearing, but at least one Liberal Member has given the debate a little of his time.
  Having listened to our arguments and having understood the rights involved, I hope that at least some Conservative Members will join us in voting for the amendments.
  Mr. Batiste: It will be apparent to all those who listened to the 40-minute lecture from the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) that he used to be a lecturer on industrial relations. He gave us a detailed but rather academic exposition on the difference between consultation and collective bargaining. In practice, it means relatively little, as much depends on the procedures and on how much they overlap. For the purposes of this debate, the significant and practical point is whether the arrangements that now exist have worked, and they patently have not.
  I am as committed an enthusiast for the principle of collective bargaining as the hon. Member for Leeds, Central, but although teachers are important, it is the children in our schools who matter most. We have waited too long for a resolution of the dispute. The difference between the Opposition and the Government can be seen in the way in which we approach the present stalemate and seek to break out of it. The Opposition want a long-term
  386
  solution. I believe that any long-term solution must involve a more formalised arrangement for collective bargaining. The Government propose a short-term solution to an immediate problem, and on that basis I am very willing to support it.
  I am prepared to accept this short-term solution because I have urged my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State before to go further and faster than he did in the Education (No. 2) Bill and substantially to devolve power to the governing bodies of schools. After the next election, that must be one of our earliest priorities. A long-term solution to the collective bargaining arrangements within the teaching profession must wait for that fundamental reform of the way in which the education budget is administered.
  Thus, we must find a short-term solution to this difficult problem. I would not have spoken if the right hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) had responded to my intervention. However, he completely ignored my questions, so I feel bound to repeat them in more detail. I am delighted that he has resumed his seat, as those questions are of fundamental importance. Why have the collective bargaining arrangements broken down, and what was the Opposition's role in their failure? That question must be put firmly on the agenda for this debate.
  The right hon. Member for Durham, North is straining at the leash to reply, but I shall give him an opportunity later to put the record straight. Several questions have been put to me. During the course of the negotiations between the unions and the employers there were repeated and obvious moments when Labour party representatives on both sides of the table left the room on the understanding of the others present that they intended to consult the right hon. Gentleman. I put that to the right hon. Gentleman — [Interruption.] I apologise, is he simply an hon. Gentleman? I am sure that that is an ommission that time will remedy. There will, after the next election, be a vacancy for the post of Leader of the Opposition and, by tradition, the Leader of the Opposition is a Member of the Privy Council. I am sure that it is only a matter of time before the hon. Gentleman is a candidate for that post.
  My point is that the hon. Member for Durham, North said that over the course of the past two years, he has made repeated interventions with a view to trying to ease a settlement between the two parties. If that is correct, it is fair. However, I have to say to him that many people are rather suspicious of some of his interventions and I want to give the hon. Gentleman the opportunity of facing squarely up to the points that have been put to me. I cast no aspersions. I am simply giving him an opportunity to answer the points that have been put to me by many trade unionists who are involved in the education world and who are concerned at the way in which his interventions may have led, for example, to the walk-out of some of the employers' representatives.
  There were some helpful points in the package that was put forward. It may be that the hon. Member for Durham,
  North—
  The Chairman: Order. Can the hon. Gentleman help me by telling me to which amendment he is addressing himself?
  Mr. Batiste: I am referring to the entire package of amendments, because they were proposed on the basis that

  387
  they were an alternative system for collective bargaining to replace those being put forward by the Government. I am saying that there would be no need for those amendments if the obstacles to collective bargaining that exist were removed.
  The hon. Member for Durham, North and others have made repeated references to the attempts of the parties to settle the disputes directly between themselves—employers and unions. I would very much like that to be a solution. I would have that as a preferred solution. However, there appear to be obstacles to that and the amendments that have been proposed will present further obstacles to that process. On that basis I would suggest, Mr. Walker, although I am always bound by your guidance, that what I am saying is directly relevant—as will be the response I hope, from the hon. Member for Durham, North. Unfortunately, the hon. Gentleman has now left his seat as I come to the point I wish to put to him.
  In the package that has been brought forward there are, on public record, some points of common accord. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has accepted that many parts of the package are helpful. However, there are two sticking points that relate to the amount of money involved in the package and the question of incentive payments. I want to know, and I think that everybody is entitled to know, what interventions the hon. Member for Durham, North made on those two points. It has been suggested to me that his interventions on those points were designed to produce a package that would be acceptable to the Labour party but unacceptable to the Government and that, in fact, the dispute is being prolonged for electoral purposes by the Labour party. If that is so, it is a disgrace. It is a disgrace that the country should know about.
  It is perhaps a matter of ultimate regret that, although it was obvious what question I was going to put to the hon. Member for Durham, North, he has walked out of the Chamber rather than respond to the points I have made. I have no doubt that if I sit down shortly he will come back in when the opportunity to respond has passed by. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will keep pressing the hon. Gentleman to respond to those points because I intend to make them again and again until we get clear answers as to exactly why he intervened in the negotiations, whether he did so with the authority of the Leader of the Opposition and the extent to which those interventions caused the failure of negotiations on those points and prolonged the dispute.
  The Chairman: Order.
  Mr. Batiste: I am mindful of your intervention, Mr. Walker, and I will not take the matter any further. I am sure that, as soon as I resume my seat, the hon. Member for Durham, North will return to the Chamber and pretend that nothing has happened.
  6.15 pm
  Mr. Flannery: I am sure that the hon. Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste) was speaking on behalf of his union, Equity. It sounded as if he was standing in the Royal Shakespeare theatre. The departure of my hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) whatever he has gone out to do, alarmed the hon. Gentleman to the extent that we heard the last great soliloquy of "Othello" during his speech.
  Mrs. Elaine Kellet-Bowman rose—
  Mr. Flannery: I am not giving way. I wish the hon. Lady would sit down and let me get on with my speech.
  Mrs. Kellet-Bowman: On a point of order, Mr. Walker. May we ask the hon. Gentleman to enlighten us as to which amendment he is speaking to?
  The Chairman: I think that the hon. Gentleman is making introductory comments.
  Mr. Flannery: I have not begun speaking precisely to the amendment yet. The hon. Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman) has a reputation in the House for intervening in the middle of the first sentence of any Labour Member.
  Before I deal with amendment No 8 and other amendments, I want to say that the hon. Member for Elmet is not unknown to me. He and his wife were both councillors in Sheffield for many years. He has spent his conscious life struggling against free collective bargaining in trade unions.
  Mr. Batiste rose—
  Mr. Flannery: Let me say a few more words about the hon. Gentleman before I give way.
  The hon. Gentleman is on the record in Sheffield as being totally opposed to trade unions. However, he said tonight that, like Labour Members, he believes in the principle of free collective bargaining. He does not. That is nonsense. He is utterly and totally opposed to free collective bargaining, just as the Secretary of State is. Before I go any further, let me warm the cockles of the hearts of Conservative members by saying that there are no Members of the Liberal party or the Social Democratic party in the Chamber.
  Mr. Batiste rose—
  Mr. Flannery: There are some Labour Members present. We do not have as many Members as the Conservative party—
  Mrs. Kellett-Bowman rose—
  Mr. Flannery: I am sure that the hon. Lady would like to stop me in mid-sentence again, but I will not let her.
  It is appalling to see the Conservative party, with sickening unanimity, agreeing to the total violation of democracy contained in the Bill.
  Mr. Batiste rose—
  Mr. Flannery: Not just now. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will curb himself for a moment.
  Mr. Kenneth Baker: Give way.
  Mr. Flannery: When I am told by the Secretary of State, I shall certainly give way.
  Mr. Batiste: The House will judge the accuracy of the hon. Gentleman's general comments by virtue of the fact that I have never been a councillor in Sheffield. My wife was a councillor and on her first election she won her seat by 19 votes largely due to the fact that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) spoke against her.
  Mr. Flannery: I am not allowed to say that the hon. Gentleman has distorted the truth but he knows that he has. The hon. Gentleman, as is fashionable these days, could plead the fifth amendment.
  I want to speak about this horrific Bill. I was saying, when interrupted by the hon. Member for Elmet, who has

  389
  a ready wit, as an actor must, that there is sickening unanimity within the Conservative party. I believe that Conservative Members—some of whom I know very well and respect—have pocketed their democracy. There is the unanimity of the graveyard on the matter of democracy within the Tory party. Even hon. Members that I have been in Committee with and listened to with great respect are going along with this diktat as if, in some way, there was a process of democracy in it. They know as well as I do that the reason for the Bill is that the Government are weary of negotiation. They have not got anywhere and, like any dictatorial grouping, they finally want a short cut. They have decided to get rid of democracy. It is no use their denying that. The TUC and all the unions are watching with great care this most serious debate on the most important education measure since the 1944 Act. Unlike the 1944 Act, which sought to advance the cause of education, with this Bill the Government are doing their undemocratic utmost to stifle the advance of education. The amendments seek to redeem the Government's reputation, which is steadily being lost, by taking a tiny step in the direction of democracy. Amendment No. 8 is a good example. I was about to refer to it when I was rudely interrupted by the hon. Member for Lancaster, who accused me of not wishing to discuss these matters.
  Unlike most hon. Members, I sat on the Burnham committee for some years. I will explain to the House exactly what that committee was. Its members were elected in competition within the unions and the employing bodies. The only members who were not elected were those representing the Government.
  Mr. Peter Bruinvels: They were elected.
  Mr. Flannery: They were appointed. Tory Governments and, sadly, Labour Governments, appointed a couple of representatives, but those representatives carried 15 votes—the Secretary of State will correct me if I am wrong—so they could sway the committee by putting their foot down on behalf of the Government. [Interruption.] That is not like the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) I have served with him on so many Committees that I almost called him my hon. Friend. But for the present leadership, I believe that he would have been Chairman of the Select Committee.
  Clause 1 will repeal the Remuneration of Teachers Act 1965. Before doing that, the Government took all kinds of steps to make the elected Burnham committee unworkable. The teachers, weary at seeing the committee stymied by the Government, agreed that it should go. They believed that it would be replaced by something equally if not more democratic, but the provisions in the Bill have nothing whatever to do with democracy. The Secretary of State will appoint every member of the new body without any democratic process whatever.
  Mr. Maples: He is elected.
  Mr. Flannery: The hon. Gentleman has clearly not read the Bill. I would not make a statement like that without evidence. Let the Secretary of State give us an answer. He failed to reply to me on Monday about the Bill going for Royal Assent on 19 December. He can deny that now if he likes, although it is not relevant to this debate.
  Mr. Kenneth Baker: We want to know whether my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste) was a member of Sheffield city council, as the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) has alleged. That has not been cleared up.
  Mr. Flannery: I thought that it was, but if that is not correct I withdraw it, as it is not in my nature to persist in things that are wrong.
  Mr. Batiste rose—
  Mr. Flannery: The hon. Gentleman will now graciously thank me.
  Mr. Batiste: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his generous withdrawal, which shows yet again his close knowledge of his own city.
  Mr. Flannery: I was already here for much of that time, while the hon. Gentleman was fighting madly to get here.
  The interruption from the Secretary of State was not unexpected. I see that he still has the same smile on his face. He would look well waving from a carriage with that smile. Perhaps I may quote Lord Hailsham, one of the right hon. Gentleman's noble Friends. Indeed, I believe that one is supposed to call him the right noble Lord. Lord Hailsham is a democrat who believes that people should be elected. He noticed that when a party was elected with an overwhelming majority there was a tendency to be dizzy with success and drunk with power. He described such a Government—he was, of course, referring to a Labour Government at the time—as an elected dictatorship. As a result of their own interventions, the Tories succeeded in obtaining a bigger majority but a smaller vote in the last election than in the previous election.
  They are now pushing things through for which they have no mandate whatever and which are a total violation of democracy, despite their claim that they have been elected and thus have the right to do virtually anything.
  The Bill destroys the whole process of negotiation. The trade unions, the Labour party and many other people are watching this debate closely, because if the Bill is accepted the Tories will seek to destroy free negotiation in the public sector generally and then, judging from their reputation since 1979, to attack the trade unions generally. This is being carefully watched by the TUC, the president of which is not unknown to the National Union of Teachers. [Interruption.] Do I even have to tell the Tories his name? Harry will tell them, although he was in the National Association of Schoolmasters rather than the NUT, weren't you, Harry?
  The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that we do not refer to other hon. Members in that fashion in the House. If he wishes to draw attention to another hon. Member he should do so by reference to that hon. Member's constituency.
  Hon. Members: The honourable Harry.
  Mr. Flannery: The hon. Gentleman knows me well. He even knows my first name.
  Mr. Greenway rose—
  Mr. Flannery: I give way to the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway)
  Mr. Greenway: The hon. Gentleman is referring to someone whom I have known for 30 years—Mr. Fred Jarvis. I think that we should be open about the name.
  Mr. Flannery: Yes, you have made that clear.
  Mr. Brandon-Bravo: Conservative Members have listened, sometimes noisily but mostly with care, yet we have had very few answers from the Labour party. We believe in collective bargaining if the circumstances exist for it to function properly, but how can the free collective bargaining that the hon. Gentleman holds so sacred operate when there are six unions who cannot agree among themselves and 104 separate employer organisations?
  Mr. Flannery: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Brandon-Bravo: I will give way on one condition—that the hon. Gentleman answers those questions.
  6.30 pm
  Mr. Flannery: The hon. Gentleman, like the Minister, is always insisting on one condition—he has got to have his condition. However, I respect his views even though he does not respect mine. The hon. Gentleman may say that we never give him the expected answers, but quite frankly if I gave him the answer that he expects Big Ben would strike 13. He would never accept any answer. When the hon. Gentleman protests—methinks he protests too much—that he believes in collective bargaining, like the other member of Equity, the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Freud), he does not fool us. The hon. Gentleman believes in the Bill. The Bill is totally and utterly opposed to any programme of democracy or any free collective bargaining.
  On Monday night I was present for the debate on the Bill. I left the Chamber to perform a natural function. [Interruption.] I went to eat. I am sure that everybody denounced me for leaving the Chamber. When I returned I made a brief speech. It was shortened by the continual intervention of the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash). He is not here at present. The hon. Gentleman intervenes in every speech if hon. Members are daft enough to let him. I think that Conservative Members think the same as I do about that hon. Gentleman.
  I went out of the House to pick up a copy of The London Evening Standard which always claims it has standards. On the front page it said "Victory". The victory apparently was against Mr. Chirac. We understand now that Mr. Mitterrand had told Mr. Chirac repeatedly not to introduce the Bill because it would cause endless trouble.
  Mr. Chirac went ahead and put forward a Bill, not as draconian as this one, but a Bill that upset large numbers of people, and finally he had to withdraw it. I am not saying that this Bill will be withdrawn by this unregenerate Government and their Minister who, frankly, does not understand state education.
  The Bill is causing unnecessary trouble. If the money had been provided two years ago, there would be no trouble now. I appeal to the Minister to put in the place of the advisory council a freely, honourably elected organisation which will discuss the issues democratically and honestly. If we did that, the Government and ourselves would not be in this present mess. I ask him to do something democratic to help education rather than attack free collective bargaining, thereby disrupting our schools and setting back education for years.
  Mr. David Madel: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Sheffield,
  392
  Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery). I recall his interventions and questions in the Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts between 1979 and 1983. I honestly do not think that, if that Select Committee were considering the Bill, the hon. Gentleman would have painted such a lurid picture. He spoke of Domesday, comparisons with France, a terrible attack on trade union rights—
  Mr. Flannery: It is a terrible Bill.
  Mr. Madel: It is not a terrible Bill. In a few words I wish to explain to the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members why I do not believe that to be the case.
  First, the Bill is a temporary measure; it expires in March 1990. Before that time there must be a general election. There may be two general elections and I hope—
  Mr. Peter Bruinvels: Pardon?
  Mr. Madel: I cannot concentrate too well at the moment, but I shall give way to my hon. Friend shortly.
  There may be more than one general election and I hope that education is a major issue of any election. Having listened to the past two and a half hours of debate, anyone would think that what is being proposed will last year after year. That is not so. The central point is that a new system of bargaining must be created for the teaching profession. The present system has broken down, but one cannot create a new system overnight. Collective bargaining works only if there is a recognised and reasonable framework within which it can operate. That framework exists in other public sector industries, but it has not always been the case.
  The hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett)—I am sorry that he has left the Chamber—painted a picture of an unending flow of marvellous collective bargaining in the United States and western Europe. The hon. Gentleman conveniently forgot that, from time to time, collective bargaining has been interrupted by democratically elected Governments. There were the statutory wage policies imposed by the Labour party and the Conservative party—some of my hon. Friends voted for that between 1970 and 1974, although they wish to forget it. My hon. Friends may have changed their minds—and indeed a party can change its mind on such matters.
  I remember that, in the 1960s, the late President Kennedy intervened in the collective bargaining process within the steel industry and imposed a settlement. The history of collective bargaining is not an even progress towards paradise, it is a bumpy ride. The Government have had to bring in the Bill because of difficulties in the teaching profession.
  The hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) often mentions ACAS. I think that he is a convert to the role of ACAS in this dispute. I wish the hon. Gentleman had said in 1985—many of us did—that ACAS should intervene—and at a much earlier stage than the unions agreed. I remind the hon. Gentleman that in June 1985 ACAS formally asked all unions to come to it and to start negotiations on how to get out of the problem. My goodness, there was a problem in 1985. School after school was disrupted, parent after parent was worried about how his child would do in the O and A-level examinations in 1985. Some unions did not respond positively to ACAS. Frankly, the Opposition did not push anything like as hard as they should have done about this matter.
  Mr. Radice: The hon. Gentleman was a supporter of the idea of ACAS coming into the negotiations, but as I recall, the Secretary of State did not respond to his request, which he made during Question Time. I wish to inform him, for the record, that I was in close contact with ACAS throughout 1985 and I strongly supported its intervention which led to the trade unions and the employers getting together under the ACAS agreement. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is saying that he supports the ACAS agreement.
  Mr. Madel: The hon. Gentleman may say that, but the ACAS agreement is not firm. Let me give him another example of where things went wrong but the Opposition remained silent.
  In October 1985 the then chairman of employers made a wage offer and the general secretary of the NAS/UWT said that there should be early discussions, without preconditions, of that offer. The hon. Gentleman should note the date. The NUT would have nothing to do with it. There was another three months of do-nothingism and classroom disruption and another three months of parents getting more and more worried as the 1986 O and A-level examinations approached.
  No Government can sit idly by and wash their hands of the matter.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett rose—
  Mr. Madel: I shall give way in a moment.
  The Secretary of State has a duty to maintain a good education service. That is enshrined in the Education Act 1944.
  Another trade union decided to disrupt and cause trouble in the autumn of 1985, even when its sister unions were calling for early discussions on the improved pay offer put forward by the then chairman of the Labour employers.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: The hon. Gentleman has made an implied criticism of my hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) for not pushing for negotiation. But what was the Secretary of State doing all that time? The Secretary of State has a role and a responsibility for education. He should have tried to get the parties together, but time after time he washed his hands of the entire matter. He did not produce the money.
  Mr. Madel: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is wrong. If he studies Hansard he will see that the former Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph), consistently welcomed the intervention of ACAS in the summer of 1985. He was as aghast as we were that we had another three months of standstill in autumn 1985 because the NUT would not respond to the NAS/UWT request that there should be early discussions.
  Opposition Members' other worry concerns the funding of education. Since 1979, there has been a steady increase in central funding of certain subjects. The hon. Member for Hillsborough has supported that. He has signed the agreement of the Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts that the Secretary of State should take additional powers and strengthen the curriculum when he feels that it is defective. I know that the hon. Member will remember that there was such a recommendation in one of our reports. Nevertheless, the
  394
  Opposition worry about centralism. The curriculum has been improved and the Secretary of State has done his duty by the 1944 Act.
  Mr. Flannery: The hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that I want something balanced. We have visited many countries to study their education systems. I know that, like me, he wants the utmost democracy, but with the Bill the Secretary of State is taking powers that are draconian in the extreme. Everything for which we have struggled for years is under ruthless attack. I cannot believe that many Conservative Members quite understand that. I know them and I cannot believe that they are going along with the Bill.
  Mr. Madel: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I have studied the Bill carefully and I do not believe that it gives the Secretary of State draconian powers.
  It would not be right for me now to discuss new clause 11, which I have tabled, but my right hon. and hon. Friends have said many times that they want schools to have greater control over how money is spent and for teachers to have greater power to make adjustments to salaries as and when they think fit. That is an example of our democratising the education service. We are trying to make head teachers more responsive to what parents want.
  To listen to Opposition Members, one would think that these temporary powers will somehow be used to cause a mighty collision with the trade unions in the teaching profession. I do not believe that anything like that will occur. The Bill is simply a bridge to try to achieve a settlement while we build in improved negotiating machinery.
  If my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State does nothing, the dispute will drag on. Of course the dispute is upsetting to teachers, ratepayers and the Government, but it is supremely upsetting to parents, who are desperately worried that, if it goes on, their children's examination results will suffer and that that will affect their job opportunities. The Bill is simply a temporary bridge to try and achieve a settlement. I have listened to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State often, and I cannot believe that he wants to do anything other than work with the teaching trade unions to build a better education service.
  6.45 pm
  Mr. Spearing: The hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South-West (Mr. Madel) is reading the Bill with rose-tinted spectacles. I do not doubt that the Secretary of State and other Conservative Members agree with his definition of the Bill's purpose, but I am afraid that I cannot isolate what is being done from other trends and the actions and attitudes of the Secretary of State. I deplore the fact that the Secretary of State announced education policy on a sympathetic television programme. I hope that he will say something about that when he winds up the debate.
  We must consider the Bill in the context of the crisis that has emerged in Burnham and of the pattern in education, in regard to which the Secretary of State's irresponsible attitude on television last Sunday was but the latest emanation.
  Mr. Peter Bruinvels: It was good.
  Mr. Spearing: The ideas might have been good, but it is not in order to discuss that now.
  If the Secretary of State is to fulfil his duties and responsibilities, he should produce a White Paper, make

  395
  a statement in the House and make a speech about his plans. He should adhere to the customary procedures rather than come out with one or two superficially attractive ideas on a sympathetic television programme that is watched by millions of people. I am not suggesting that he does not have a right to go on such a programme, but if he makes statements in that way he is not fulfilling his proper function as Secretary of State in a parliamentary democracy.
  I am a member of the National Union of Teachers. I taught in the classroom for 14 years before I came here. My tone might therefore be less light-hearted than that of some Conservative Members appears to be. When one has been at the bottom of the heap for 14 years, one understands a little more about the feelings of people who are being made to feel almost like peasants or peons. I challenge Conservative Members, especially those who have been in one of the caring professions—I see one present—to imagine what they would feel if their historic negotiating machinery, which had been built up over nearly a century, was swept away by a Secretary of State who came in from another Department and presented a Bill such as this, which is being pushed through the House within one week. Experience of being at the bottom of the heap is the basis of my feelings, and the Secretary of State knows that, but for a single vote on a certain selection panel in 1970, that is where I would be now.
  Mr. Hunter: I also taught for 14 years and feel that I can intervene on the basis of some experience. During the hon. Gentleman's 14 years of membership of the NUT, what positive input did he have into that union's debates to overcome the inner flaw of Burnham—the separation of pay and conditions?
  Mr. Spearing: I am still a member of the NUT. During my 14 years as a teacher, I was a member of my local association and of wider areas and I went to conference. The arrangements under which the Burnham committee operated were set down in the Education Act 1944. That Act was the fixed point within which the various bodies manoeuvred until 1963, when Lord Boyle of Handsworth, who was then Secretary of State, introduced his infamous Boyle's law, which is the predecessor of this Bill. I have no doubt that the people who drafted the Bill examined Boyle's law first, but they have taken twice the length to do the same job.
  The difficulties that were perhaps apparent in the education world after 1944 did not centre on difficulty with the operation of the Burnham committee. Things were very gentlemanly, or ladylike—I must be careful with the modern idiom. I was a member of the west Lambeth branch of the NUT. It was regarded as a militant association. I do not know what educational establishment the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) was in, but when NUT representatives went to speak to their colleagues on the teachers' panel of the Burnham committee and their partners, the employers—that was the attitude taken—little was said about figures. It was not until 1957 that the west Lambeth association put a resolution to the annual general meeting of the NUT that we wanted to see a basic scale of £600 to £1,200 a year for teachers. Until that time, those who went into negotiation on Burnham did not have any mandate from the conference.
  396
  My reply to the hon. Gentleman is that at that time much more important matters in education were on the table than the apparent snagging up of Burnham, which has apparently happened now, although I do not believe that the statutory structure bequeathed to us by Michael Stewart, now Lord Stewart of Fulham, was as bad as has been made out. It has been snagged up more by personalities and events than by the statutory framework which the Bill seeks to replace.
  Lord Boyle of Handsworth set the ball rolling 23 years ago by rejecting an agreement selectively agreed by teachers and employers. That agreement did not come after such difficulties as we have experienced in the past two or three years. It was reached after perhaps three months. On the flimsy excuse that differentials were not adequate, the officials persuaded Sir Edward Boyle, as he was then, that he should use his reserve powers under the 1944 Act and reject that agreement, as he had a statutory right to do.
  The impact on staff rooms around the country was great. I had the privilege of teaching at Wandsworth school—now, alas, defunct through falling rolls. We had a fine collection of staff members who had worked together for five or six years without knowing what letters came after other people's names, without wondering what institutions others went to, or whether they had letters after their names at all. There were some two-year trained teachers taking A-levels in the sixth form, and there were some well-qualified, first-class honours graduates taking nearly remedial pupils. The proud boast of the headmaster of that school was that the most expensive department of the school was the remedial department.
  When the Boyle bombshell burst, so great was the indignation at that school that a number of us went on unofficial strike and went to Curzon street to try to interview Lord Boyle, whom we regarded as selling out the education service through his arrogant approach. As we were mounting the steps, it emerged that of the three of us in the delegation selected to speak for those who had taken off the last period of school to try to make an impact, one was a member of the Liberal party, one was a member of the Conservative party and one was a member of the Labour party. We were all in receipt of special responsibility allowances, and we were all going on unofficial strike against being paid more. The best of British education was found in that staff room. We knew that once the Boyle Bill went through, any Secretary of State, ever after, would have powers of virtual dictatorship on the Burnham committee and that that would cause trouble and difficulty.
  I shall not say that the last few years of trouble and difficulty have been entirely and only the fault of the way in which the Secretary of State has used his powers, either directly and indirectly. Every Conservative Member will know that the previous Secretary of State had some definite ideas about what he wanted out of Burnham, and over the three years of travail that we have had, the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) had his share in fouling up the system. One could go on arguing for years about relative responsibilities, but he played a part.
  The 1963 Bill was the predecessor of this Bill. Between 1965 and 1985 we had, not the Boyle Act, but the Stewart Act, the one that is with us now. The difficulties that we face have not been inevitable within the working of that Act. Let me explan why I think that in education there

  397
  must be a balance between corporate responsibility and individual limited licence. The essential element of what we try to do in the House in our parliamentary democracy is one of the great philosophical themes about which we can agree.
  A great deal has been heard recently about the wishes of parents. However, the wishes of parents in one school are not the only important factor. There is the concern of the public as a whole, and that group of people have a corporate responsibility. If there is anybody who represents that public responsibility it is the Secretary of State, whether he be the one who is sitting in the Chamber, his predecessor, or his successor. That person is a public trustee. He is not at the apex of line management.
  The Secretary of State is not like the Minister for Health, who is a super-manager. Whether or not he has a health board, the Minister for Health is in line management. He has the whole of the health industry, to use phrases that Conservative Members like to use, and he is at the apex of it. However, the Secretary of State is a public trustee for the whole nation. His remit is not only in the public sector, but is in the private sector too. He has responsibility for the licensing of schools, making sure that teachers are there, and so on. It is a big and responsible remit and he is the representative of the nation and the public at large, all of whom have an interest in the future and, therefore, by definition, in our educational establishment, and not just those who are fortunate enough to have children at school at the time.
  There are also the representatives of the local interest, those who are living in the close community, whether it be Nottingham, Rugby, Leicester or any of these optimum-sized towns which are so characteristic in Britain. I am glad to see the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels) nodding, because what is right for Leicester may not be right for Rugby, Nottingham or Newham. The local public also have an interest, and their corporate and collective representative is the local education authority.
  What about those who operate the system — the employees, the teachers? This set of amendments is about the corporate identity of teachers and their interests. They, as a group, can be exploited. It is easy to exploit teachers because, by and large, teachers have a conscience about what they are doing. They know just how vital their job is. I can remember the psychological strain of the few months before I came to this place, which was caused by being responsible for 500 pupils in a London secondary school. That strain was very great, especially as a munificent Ministry of Education had given me just a room to share with three other people.
  Mr. Fatchett: That sounds like the House of Commons.
  Mr. Spearing: No, it was far worse. That school was built in 1956 and was subject to the Horsbrugh cuts. Teaching is a much more exacting job than being a Member of Parliament.
  It is easy for parents and the public to exploit teachers. The teachers should collectively state that they want a remuneration broadly equivalent to that received by other people discharging similar responsibilities.
  Mr. Richard Caborn: Can my hon. Friend enlighten us about the Horsbrugh cuts?
  7 pm
  Mr. Spearing: Dame Florence Horsbrugh was a very well-known politician in the 1950s. When I joined the teaching profession, she suddenly decided that schools should not be as well provided for as they had been. There was a series of building cuts, and that meant that when I began teaching I walked around 19 rooms a week. I recall that the day after the Horsbrugh cuts were announced the evening papers had a placard that read, "Credit squeeze off—Official." Difficulties with resources from Tory Governments are not new; we have had them for the past 30 years.
  There is a corporate responsibility of and a corporate need for teachers to get together. Many people have asked why the unions scrap rather than get together. Conservative Members may not understand what has happened. The history of education in this country is, sadly, unlike that of Germany and some other continental countries. In 1902, instead of reorganising around a rational system, the then Tory Government did a spatchcock job in the Education Act 1902. It is all very well for the Secretary of State to shed tears over decisions taken in Germany in the last century, but similar decisions should have been taken in Britain in 1902.
  In 1902 there were many different schools with different traditions—grammar schools, the so-called public schools, technical schools, the all-age schools in rural areas and—after the 1920s—the new central schools in city areas. As class distinctions were, to put it bluntly, very much to the fore in those days, each type of school with its own tradition had its own collective association organised in counties and districts. At one stage the National Union of Teachers represented a rather wider range of staff than it does today. However, there was a dispute about equal pay, and one section of members—now represented by a leading union—hived off from the NUT. The unions and associations have reflected, and still reflect, some of the deep historic roots of our educational structure.
  Conservative Members may forget that, unless the traditions, aspirations and attitudes are reflected in some form of collective bargaining, the ventilation of those aspirations will be suppressed. We all know that, if people believe that their case is not being put or if their gut feelings are not aired, they will not be happy with the form of discussion.
  I believe that a wide range of traditions, practices and aspirations have come together over the years on the Burnham committee. That is not necessarily a disadvantage, because it adequately and properly reflects some of the traditions, backgrounds and positive virtues of the variety in our system. That is what Conservative Members must confront. However, the Secretary of State comes along with very strong views on how education should be conducted. He says that he wants to weed out the bad teachers.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) was challenged about criticisms of teachers. Anyone who can use the words "weed out bad teachers" has misunderstood the position. That is rather like saying "Weed out bad MPs"—[Interruption.] The public have a chance to do that every five years. They will make their judgment and that is not a partisan point.
  If a teacher is appointed, passes his probationary year, is registered with the Secretary of State—he is given a

  399
  number and is therefore qualified—and is regarded as suitable for selection and training—paid for at public expense — there should be an obligation on the profession and teaching organisations to improve the standard of teachers. That is what we want. I am glad to see Conservative Members nodding. However, the Secretary of State has marched in and said that he wants to weed out the weak and bad teachers. What a way to start negotiations.
  Mr. Jack Dormand: My hon. Friend has made a serious point and given us another example of the Government's hypocrisy. As I have always said and as I am sure that the Secretary of State will agree, there is nothing worse than the teacher who does not reach the required standard to continue as a teacher for the rest of his life. The education of thousands of children is involved.
  There are several remedies for the problem. First—and I cannot understand why this has not been tried—if by the end of a three-year training period, the trainers do not realise that certain students will not become successful teachers, the trainers are not up to the job. Secondly, there used to be a one-year probationary teaching period during which teachers were examined by Her Majesty's inspectors and a local authority. I am not sure whether that procedure is still followed. I support my hon. Friend's point. There should be no question of weeding out. Decisions should be taken in the first year. The Government have been hypocritical. Why have they not done something about that, when they have been in power since 1979?
  Mr. Spearing: My hon. Friend has underlined my point. The real, underlying magnetic forces in education have not been understood either by the previous Secretary of State or by the present one, as evidenced by his action in introducing the Bill.
  Mr. Kenneth Baker: I should like to come in on cue. Before the intervention of the hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Dormand), the hon. Gentleman asked a rhetorical question along the lines of: "What are the Government going to do about the teachers who, as a result of appraisal, are considered not to be performing well?" I remind him that I have announced an increase in in-service training next year amounting to £200 million. That is the largest amount of money that we have devoted within the education service to the in-service training of teachers, and it will allow about 100,000 teachers next year—approximately a quarter of the profession—to have courses lasting for up to four weeks.
  Mr. Spearing: I am grateful to the Secretary of State, because his motives in that regard are exceptional. If I may revert to the dimensions of the classroom — which perhaps even he has not understood—in-service training should be carried out in the school. It cannot necessarily be carried out through courses. By his reply, the Secretary of State shows that he has to some extent misunderstood the point. A teacher may be incapable of doing the job. A teacher may be magnificent in one school, but, when he goes to a difficult area, he may not be able to cope with the classes or the social surroundings in which the school is situated. What he needs more than most is encouragement, help and assistance from his colleagues.
  Mr. Fatchett: That is right.
  Mr. Spearing: I am glad that my hon. Friend agrees. When I was elected to Parliament, I left behind a school in which, nearly every evening, I had to stay behind with one or other of my colleague teachers and talk about the problems that they faced day after day. I also had to deal with some weeping teachers, weeping parents and weeping children. Teachers need assistance from their colleagues.
  When a good teacher is selected to be a head of department, head of house, tutor or whatever, he does not think about promotion or about the next rung on the ladder, about which the Secretary of State is so keen. The teacher is giving out to his colleagues. That is the motivation. The satisfaction that he gets from doing a good job and helping his colleagues and the children transcends a great deal of the so-called career structure. Many of the assumptions about collective bargaining made by Conservative Members are quite wrong and out of keeping with what happens.
  People working in a metal-working factory, or even in Sainsburys, Woolworths, or Boots, have managerial expertise and operate on a set of criteria. Those dealing with human beings have different criteria. To some extent, these are opposite rules. Despite that, the Secretary of State believes that a career structure with wider differentials will do the trick. I shall not say that it is not welcome because of the extra pay, but I suggest that the Secretary of State's assumptions about what motivates teachers are not as accurate as they might be.
  Mr. Hunter: I appreciate a great deal of what the hon. Gentleman has said. There is much common ground. The message that I get from head teachers in my constituency is that these differentials are needed not to attract teachers but to retain them, in particular in areas of high employment—thank goodness there are some—where they seek other jobs.
  Mr. Spearing: The hon. Gentleman is right. On this issue, there is a good deal of agreement among practical teachers. I have encountered difficulties, particularly with craft and technical training. It is impossible, even for schools with a high reputation and good collegiate atmosphere, to hold teachers, because they are offered jobs elsewhere with higher rates of pay. I suggest—again, this is a matter directly related to collective bargaining—that we need a structure of remuneration that reflects the demands for comparable skills and services in the general market.
  The Secretary of State is bringing market forces into the classroom to an inappropriate degree, and in the end that will cause disaster. We shall be doing away with the power and responsibility of local education authorities. If they are not responsible in negotiations for directly determining the remuneration of teachers, their raison d'etre will disappear. Will local education authorities be reduced to the status of employers of caretakers, repairers of windows and wholesale suppliers of textbooks, soap and cleaning materials? That will happen if Conservative Members' wishes are taken to their logical conclusion. Local education authorities will be quartermaster agents of Queen Elizabeth house. That is what the Secretary of State will end up with—indeed, he more or less said so when he talked about city technology colleges being the forerunners of a new system.
  Corporate collective bargaining is necessary in our education system. Every partner, including the Secretary

  401
  of State, represents a corporate interest. Unless the partners can express that interest and co-operate within a satisfactory and proper statutory framework, the cooperative needs of education will not be met. The present legislation may need some amendment, but it does not need the changes that we are considering tonight.
  7.15 pm
  Mr. Pawsey: I wish to make a brief speech, if only because the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) spoke for about 40 minutes. It is significant that, so far, this batch of amendments has attracted more than four hours' debate. The hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) sought to suggest that the distinctions between the ACAS proposals in Nottingham and those of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State were relatively small.
  Mr. Radice indicated assent.
  Mr. Pawsey: The hon. Gentleman shows his agreement. He will be aware that we are not considering small distinctions. We are talking about nearly £85 million. Even in the context of Government spending, that is not a small sum.
  Mr. Radice: I have pointed out a number of times, as has, I think, even the Secretary of State, that if the date of implementation—I am talking not about the January date but about the autumn date—is moved a month, it will immediately save over £40 million. The hon. Gentleman knows that as well as I do.
  Mr. Pawsey: Even if we accept what the hon. Gentleman said, we are still talking in terms of another £45 million. Even then, as he knows, that is not the end of the difference between the two sides. Arguments about conditions of service still have not been resolved. The hon. Gentleman should understand that the increase proposed by my right hon. Friend amounts to about 16·5 per cent. In anybody's language, that is a substantial increase. I am amazed that we do not have more agreement from Labour Members on these major points.
  The hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Barnett) made much the same point. He appeared to forget the 16·5 per cent. increase and the £600 million. He also forgot the talks and protracted negotiations which have gone on month in and month out. They have not brought any solution.
  The hon. Gentleman referred to centralisation. He chose to forget circular 10/65. He chose to forget the Education Act 1976 which was passed when he was a member of the Government. I shall refresh his memory. That Act was centralist in the most extreme form. It took away the right of local education authorities to decide their own form of education. It said, "Whether thou likes it or not, thou shalt go comprehensive." God knows, many of our children have regretted that decision. That decision was made by his colleague, known to us as Shirl the Pearl in the days when she was more Socialist than Democrat. I remind the Member for Greenwich that we shall not take any lectures on centralisation from him or from his Opposition colleagues.
  Mr. Patrick Thompson: Does my hon. Friend recall the fate of the direct grant grammar schools which suffered from the same type of diktat?
  Mr. Pawsey: I do. I must tell my hon. Friend—he is probably not aware of it—that we still have grammar schools in Rugby and Kenilworth, and they are now under threat from a Socialist-alliance controlled county council. Many parents in my constituency are anxious for those grammar schools to be retained.
  Mr. Barnett: Of course, the hon. Gentleman will recall that direct grant schools were abolished by his right hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Prentice), will he not? I do not know what the right hon. Gentleman's opinion is now. In my speech, I referred to the education service as a national service locally administered. National Government have every right to lay down general parameters within which the local authority runs the education service. The Government are taking away all rights with regard to the negotiation of pay and conditions. Does the hon. Gentleman see the difference between taking away those rights and those general parameters in respect of the way in which primary or secondary education is organised?
  The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. Hon. Members should return to the amendments.
  Mr. Pawsey: I am obliged to you for that courteous advice, Mr. Armstrong. My right hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Prentice) has had the privilege during his period in Parliament of being an honourable Friend to both of us.
  Mr. Marlow: On the subject of centralisation, I wonder whether my hon. Friend would give hope to his constituents by assuring them that our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will in no way agree to a system of comprehensivisation from a Socialist local authority in Warwickshire?
  Mr. Pawsey: I am more than delighted to listen to my hon. Friend, but he must appreciate that it is with some difficulty that I put words in my right hon. Friend's mouth. However, I do not have the slightest doubt that my right hon. Friend will carefully consider any proposals made to him. I hope that he will listen carefully to the representations of Warwickshire Members of Parliament who happen to believe deeply in the principle of grammar schools.
  I thought that the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) was not being as fair as he might have been to my hon. Friend the Minister of State. The full quotation of her words is in Hansard. She said:
  "we tried hard within the Burnham machinery to make it work, but we did not succeed. That is why the Bill is needed, that is why we must have some interim arrangements for involving an advisory committee, and that is why the Bill provides for consultation with the local authorities and the unions and why the Government's conclusion should be referred to Parliament."
  Frankly, I see no reason why my hon. Friend should in any way be ashamed of her admirable phrase.
  Mr. Fatchett: I ask the hon. Gentleman to note the term used by the Minister of State—
  "provides for consultation with the local authorities and the unions".—[Official Report, 8 December 1986; Vol. 107, c. 109.]
  Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is right to chastise me for not going further in the quotation. But if I had done so, it would have made my case even stronger.
  Mr. Pawsey: The hon. Gentleman is mistaken, and not for the first time. On Monday, he drew an analogy between my speech and football. The hon. Gentleman will recall that instance, so I shall not bore the Committee with it.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Norris) scored well against the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett). He scored and scored again. The point that he made so effectively is worth repeating. First, he said that there is no taking away the right to join trade unions, as the hon. Member for Leeds, Central sought to imply at one stage.
  Mr. Fatchett: No.
  Mr. Pawsey: Oh yes, the hon. Gentleman did. Secondly, my hon. Friend brought out with his usual eloquence the point that the right to strike remains. [Interruption.] Of course I regret teachers going on strike. But the right to strike remains. It is still there to be used.
  Mr. Fatchett: The hon. Gentleman referred to me, and he obviously follows the usual courtesies. He rightly said that the loss of the right to bargain, if that is what it is—it is a matter of dispute between us—does not imply the loss of the right to strike. If the unions have the right only to consult, and not to bargain, will not the Bill make it almost inevitable that the only recourse to action will be industrial action? Is there not a danger that, through this legislation, the Government will precipitate industrial action rather than ease industrial relations problems?
  Mr. Pawsey: That is a typically gloomy interpretation by the hon. Gentleman. One of his problems is his total inability to see anything worth while in any legislation introduced by the Government. He has a closed mind. If he intends to fulfill his ambition and sit on the Labour Front Bench, he must do something about that.
  The justification for the legislation is to be found in the events in Coventry and Nottingham. The legislation is justified by the lack of agreement and the long dispute which has affected so many of our children. The discussions on pay and conditions have ground on month after gloomy month. The only result is that four of the six unions involved have come out firmly against the Nottingham agreement. As the negotiations have continued, the gulf has widened, not the reverse. It is significant that those four unions represent between one third and one half of teachers' union membership. The Opposition must understand that.
  Clearly, Burnham is outdated. It has outlived its usefulness. It has become blunted by abuse. If the unions cannot agree among themselves, and agreement is still out of sight after months of abortive talks, what should my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State do? He has a clear duty imposed on him by the House to ensure adequate teaching for our children. That is what he is doing. That is the object of the legislation.
  Government have a duty to the nation's children and a duty to bring order into the negotiations. The Bill, which provides for an interim committee and for consultations with local education authorities and with unions, will be more constructive than Burnham ever was. It will be more constructive than the recent discussions which sought to emphasise differences. Therefore, I urge my hon. Friends and Labour Members to reject the amendments.
  Dr. Marek: We have heard a lot of talk from Conservative Members about Burnham having outlived its
  404
  usefulness and not being worthy of consideration, but we have heard no reason why it has outlived its usefulness or as to the underlying problems in the teaching profesion which have led to so much discontent. It is a pity that Conservative Members, especially the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey), simply say, "Something must be done. Therefore, the Secretary of State is introducing this Bill, which will solve the problems."
  The Bill will not solve these problems. It will make them worse. Morale in education is at rock bottom already. Teachers have been hammered year in, year out. The Bill will do nothing about that. It will impose one more burden that teachers will have to bear. They will not be able to negotiate freely or, indeed, at all. Consulations will be reduced to a sham. Teachers will be bound hand and foot and will be required to do the bidding of the Secretary of State.
  Mr. Fatchett: My hon. Friend made a valid point about teacher morale. He restricted that remark to teachers in primary and secondary education but I am sure that he will agree that the collapse in teacher morale has occurred at all levels in the education system and is not restricted to primary and secondary teachers. Of course, that is a direct result of the Government's policy and their general attack on education.
  7.30 pm
  Dr. Marek: Of course my hon. Friend is right. The Bill mentions teachers in further education, and we shall discuss that in later amendments.
  The hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth told us what the Conservative party is about in resisting—as I suspect it will—many of the amendments. It is in favour of grammar schools and against comprehensive schools. Conservative Members believe that grammar schools were good and that comprehensive schools are bad. They believe in the assisted places scheme and in private education. They will resist the amendments—a large range of which seek to improve the Bill in a small way—partly for those reasons. Having said that, even if the amendments were accepted—they cannot all be accepted because they overlap a little—the Bill would still be extremely bad.
  Mr. Madel: Will the hon. Gentleman withdraw that remark? Some of us have in our own local education authorities—I stress "our own"—supported a steady, reasonable turnover to comprehensive education. He must withdraw the remark that we are against comprehensive education and not try to smear the entire Conservative party as being against comprehensive education. That is completely wrong and downright mischievous.
  Dr. Marek: I reject the charge that my remarks were mischievous. I apologise to the hon. Gentleman if I tainted him when I said that Conservative Members believe that comprehensive education is bad. However, the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth clearly spelt that out. He was, and perhaps is, a Parliamentary Private Secretary at the Department of Education and Science.
  Mr. Pawsey: I shall clarify the matter. I speak purely as a freelance. I am not a Parliamentary Private Secretary, although I had the honour of being one to my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government, the hon. Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson), in three great Departments of

  405
  State: the Department of Education and Science, the DHSS and the Northern Ireland Office. Any qualities which I now possess are entirely due to my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North.
  Dr. Marek: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that clear. I thought that he was a Parliamentary Private Secretary in the Department of Education and Science. His views will be made public through the Official Report. I am convinced that when his views are published, the public will see the true nature of the Tory party today. Of course, I have always accepted that the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South-West (Mr. Madel) and several other Conservative Members are interested in comprehensive education, but at present the Conservative party is not interested and does not wish a better education system.
  Mr. Flannery: Does my hon. Friend agree that a hard core of the Right who are in command in the Conservative party are totally opposed to comprehensive education? More than 90 per cent. of children are educated in comprehensive schools, but none of them dare attack that fact, because Conservative-voting parents are happy to have their children in comprehensive education.
  Dr. Marek: I shall reply to my hon. Friend within the context of the amendments. His point is correct. That is why, when we vote on these amendments, the Government will try to resist them. The amendments would make a bad and odious Bill slightly less odious. But I suspect that nevertheless, the amendments will be voted down.
  Mr. Pawsey: So far, the hon. Gentleman's speech has been full of inaccuracies. I am anxious to support the present proven system in the eastern area of Warwickshire because all my children were educated in that system. I speak with knowledge as a parent about what goes on. I tell the hon. Gentleman straight from the shoulder that those schools do a first-rate job. I have no desire to see them wrecked on the altar of political dogma, which is what the hon. Gentleman advocates.
  Dr. Marek: I am not saying that some grammar schools do not do a good job. But, of course, it is at the expense of other schools. That is the point. The Conservative party has always been for the privileged classes that know the value of education and can make adequate plans for their offspring. That is not always possible for everyone.
  Perhaps in supporting the amendments I can give the House some of the flavour of the problems that have made it necessary for the Government to try to do something. Of course, they did the wrong thing. They produced a Bill which would remove all negotiating rights from the unions. In the 1970s, the teaching profession was, by and large, losing esteem in the public eye. It took the Houghton committee to investigate what should be done, and it produced an excellent report. The Houghton pay scales were not attained, although they were very nearly attained because of the Clegg awards in 1979 and 1980. Since then—this is why the Bill is being discussed today—there has been an erosion of teachers' pay from 1981 and 1982 through to 1986. There has been a slow erosion of teachers' pay and facilities in schools.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Bob Dunn): That is not true.
  Dr. Marek: If the Minister says that it is not true, will he please stand up and say so? I am always prepared to be educated. There has been a steady erosion in pay from the Clegg awards until the present.
  Mr. Dave Nellist: Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be difficult for any Secretary of State to understand anything about low pay considering that they are paid £1,000 a week?
  The First Deputy Chairman: Order. We must return to the Bill and the amendments.
  Mr. Kenneth Baker: I shall assist the hon. Gentleman. When we came into office, the index of average teachers' salaries on the retail prices index was taken to be 100. In 1975, under Labour, it was 117. So, in three years of Labour Government it fell from 117 to 100. At the end of the implementation of my proposals in October next year, it will be 127.
  Dr. Marek: I am always mindful of the amendments. The Secretary of State's comments are important and pertinent to the amendments, because if everything was well in education neither the Bill nor the amendments would be before us. The Secretary of State quoted the figures at they were when the Conservative party came into office, but of course the Clegg awards were initiated and agreed by the Labour Government. It would have been fairer if he had quoted his figures from the time that the Clegg awards were implemented. That was what I was referring to. From then, salaries went down.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does my hon. Friend accept that it is much more relevant to compare teachers' salaries with other salaries? At the end of the Houghton awards he teachers' index was 100. It has now increased to 294, yet the average non-manual earnings of men and women increased during the same period from 100 to about 359. Compared with other non-manual workers, teachers have lost out steadily throughout the period, and that losing out accelerated after 1979.
  Dr. Marek: My hon. Friend has given us another set of statistics which show clearly that there has been a steady erosion of teachers' pay since 1980.
  Mr. Fatchett: Would it not have ben more accurate to make a comparison between the post-Clegg award and the current level of teachers' salaries? My hon. Friend will have noted that the Secretary of State did not make that comparison. He talked about what the figures may be in a few months' time. If the comparison had been made on the basis on which my hon. Friend was arguing and which I have just suggested, his conclusions would have been valid.
  Dr. Marek: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Perhaps I did not put it as succinctly as I could have done. That is precisely what I meant. If the Secretary of State asks for the figures from his civil servants in the Box, he will discover that that is the true position.
  The Bill will remove all negotiating rights from teachers. The Secretary of State will dictate conditions and remuneration. There will be an advisory committee, but he will not have to accept its recommendations. He will not even have to consult very far. He may consult if he wishes, but he need not take any notice of the advice given to him.
  The problem has been caused not only by the erosion of teachers' pay during the past five or six years but

  407
  because the Government have tried to cut public expenditure wherever possible. It does not matter to them where it is or even if it is a small amount; if it can be saved, the Government will try to save it. The result is that our schools are in the worst state that I can remember. In many cases, equipment is completely inadequate. I could give an example in my constituency, but I suspect that I would be ruled out of order if I did so. The general position is that the capital available and the equipment in schools are at the worst level that I can remember.
  Mr. Fatchett: That is recognised by Her Majesty's inspectors.
  Dr. Marek: As my hon. Friend says, it is recognised by the inspectorate. That is why we have this problem and that is why the Bill was introduced. We have tabled the amendments so that some collective negotiating machinery can remain after the Bill is passed. I suspect that, with their majority, the Government will railroad the Bill through the House. No doubt we shall have to sit very late tonight, but we shall give the Bill careful and detailed consideration before we let them have it.
  Mr. Caborn: Does my hon. Friend know that the Secretary of State visited Sheffield, which has major problems with the fabric of some of its school buildings? Those problems put pressure on the teaching profession, so much so that, for the first time in a long time, the local press has considered the matter important enough to make it a major campaigning item and has circulated all the Members of Parliament for Sheffield to draw the matter sharply to their attention and to try to pressurise the Government into providing better facilities in Sheffield.
  What we must also realize—this is unfortunate for many Conservative Members—is that in the inner cities, where unemployment is extremely high, children see their brothers and sisters leaving school without jobs. That in itself harms morale in school and puts pressure on teachers. This Administration have constantly attacked the education service, culminating in the imposition of this Bill. We are tabling amendments to try to mitigate its worst effects. I hope that the Secretary of State will take on board my hon. Friend's point.
  7.45 pm
  Dr. Marek: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He rather anticipated my remarks, because I was about to make some progress in my speech by saying that I have received many representations from teachers and from members of the public about the mess into which the Government have got the country. I do not blame the present Secretary of State or the Minister for that; I blame the Government because of their general economic policies and because they believe that all public expenditure is bad and must be cut, if possible.
  I have received some material and letters which I wish to place on record because they will add to the debate and may allow Conservative Members to make up their minds, and perhaps to decide that the legislation is not the best way forward and that we should allow collective bargaining and negotiation, which is what the amendments seek to do. First, may I quote from the parliamentary briefing that I received from the NUT. I dare say that many hon. Members received it. It quotes a letter fom the Minister for Education, H. A. Fisher, to Lord Burnham on 25 November 1919:
  408
  "I am keenly alive to the great embarrassments and great public disadvantage consequent upon disputes between the Local Education Authorities and the teachers in their employment on the question of salaries"—
  things have not changed very much, have they?—
  "and when in July last I proposed that the Associations of Local Education Authorities and the National Union of Teachers should come together to form a Standing Joint Committee, I did so in the hope and belief that 'an orderly and progressive solution' of an extremely difficult and complicated problem would be best reached in that way. I felt sure that it was better"—
  [HON. MEMBERS: "Boring."] Conservative Members may find it boring—I suspect because they are not interested in making this a better Bill.
  The First Deputy Chairman: Order. This is a very important debate and we are not helped at all by sedentary interventions from either side.
  Dr. Marek: This is an extremely pertinent quotation from a former Minister for Education in a letter to Lord Burnham. Of course, I am reading it because I could never commit it all to memory. It is not unknown for Conservative Members to quote letters.
  Mr. Peter Bruinvels: I have a copy of it.
  Dr. Marek: The hon. Gentleman might have received a copy, but not everyone has. It is an important quotation that should be placed on the record so that the public knows what is happening.
  The letter continues:
  "I felt sure that it was better for the Local Education Authorities, to whom under our English system of public education so great responsibilities are assigned, and for the Teaching Profession, and for the State, that the problems should be settled if possible by agreement rather than by direct intervention on my part. My confidence has been fully justified."
  That statement is the complete opposite in every way possible to what the Government propose. I defy any Conservative Member to find any common ground between that statement and the Bill. The House should ask why, in the space of 67 years, we have moved from black to white. Something must be wrong if such a thing can happen in a comparatively short period.
  During that period, we have had the development of local government. It is true that the local government system has developed, but the basic processes of oganisation in central and local government have remained the same. I subscribe completely to the view expressed in 1919, that the employers and teachers should be able to get on with it and to reach an agreement.
  The problem is, of course, that by blocking grant restrictions and by grant holdbacks the Government stop the employers and the teachers from reaching an agreement. The amendment is fundamental to the Bill because it would allow a measure of negotiation between the employers and the teachers, before the Secretary of State exercises any of the powers that he would have under the Bill.
  The briefing that I have received from the NUT says:
  "The Bill removes all negotiating rights and establishes in their stead an Advisory Committee with members appointed by the Secretary of State himself. … The Secretary of State has depicted the Bill as a measure to bring to an end the present dispute over teachers' pay. This is a deliberate misrepresentation of the purpose of the legislation which seeks to conceal the implications for democracy and civil rights. The Bill removes negotiating rights for teachers, and does not seek to improve the negotiating arrangements."

  409
  The NUT can say that again, because it is absolutely right. The Secretary of State's proposals make no provision for negotiation, but sweep it away completely. The teachers would be left almost on their own. The Government tried that with GCHQ—I do not think that they will win that argument—and they are now trying again with the teachers.
  Other public servants, as well as other professions, have national joint councils of some sort, for example, there is the building and civil engineering NJC, the engineering NJC, and the electricians NJC. The chief executives and the chief officers of local authorities have NJCs, as do the probation service, the justices' clerks, the municipal airports, and the Police Service Federated Ranks. Local authority fire brigades also have councils where negotiations can take place. The industrial Civil Service has a joint co-ordinating committee and the non-industrial Civil Service has the national Whitley council. The National Health Service has eight Whitley councils including a general Whitley council, and there are councils for ambulance officers, administrative and clerical grades, ancillary staff, community dental services staff, medical and hospital staff, scientific and professional staff, and laboratory staff and technicians.
  All those public servants have co-ordinating councils of some sort. So, why are teachers' negotiating rights to be swept away? I shall gladly give way to any Conservative Member who can tell me why negotiating rights will be swept away from the teachers.
  Mr. Caborn: My hon. Friend has just read out a very interesting list. If one considers the present actions of the Secretary of State and applies them to the joint coordinating councils and to other organisations or negotiating bodies, the trade unions in this country appear to be coming under tremendous pressure from the actions of this very centralised Government, and that will affect many tens of thousands of workers.
  Although the House is in Committee, our discussions today have serious implications for many trade unions. Within a few months the Government could centralise, or take away the negotiating rights of many thousands of workers. The Government are becoming very dictatorial and appear to be moving further to the Right. In years to come, imagine that—
  The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not make a speech; he must make an intervention.
  Mr. Caborn: There is not much danger of making a speech when my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) is on his feet because he will be speaking for at least another three hours. I need clarification on points as they arise. My hon. Friend made the important point that the Bill is one of the most serious to come before the House in terms of the wider trade union movement.
  Dr. Marek: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for underlining the importance of the points that I have made. The Bill is special because it relates only to the teachers. It does not even apply to teachers in further education, to whom, at present, the Bill seeks to give some negotiating rights. That is why we have tabled the amendments. My hon. Friend has made an important point and I hope that
  410
  he will rise and seek to catch your eye, Mr. Armstrong, later in the debate, and make that point in his own way and in his own good time. I should be interested to hear what he has to say.
  The amendments seek to retain some sort of negotiating machinery and some consultation between the teachers' and the employers' organisations. Although there were problems with the Burnham committee, an agreement was signed between four out of the six authorities about 10 days ago. However, the Government made it clear that they would not fund the full cost—whatever pay levels were awarded by that agreement. Of course, if the Government do not fund the full cost, the local authorities and the employers' organisations are subject to grant withdrawals, grant holdbacks and to losing grants if they decide to pay more than the Government are prepared to fund. That is a serious criticism of the present situation in local government as it relates to the employers.
  There would be no problem if the Government did not interfere. The Government could even say, "If you go over and above what we recommend, we shall not fund it and you will have to pay for it out of your rate income." In that case, there would be no problem. Unfortunately, the Government insist, as their overriding policy, on grant holdbacks, on blocking grants and on trying to strangle the local authorities. In the recent haggling, the result has been that employers and teachers have not known which way to turn, so they are taking a long time to reach an agreement.
  Another problem besetting the Government is that many of the employers' organisations are Labour-controlled. I should be deviating again from the amendment if I were to pursue that argument further so I shall leave it. However, I am sure that that fact is at the back of the Government's mind.
  I have received correspondence from the Clwyd division of the NUT. As I do not wish to take too long, I shall not read out the whole letter.
  Ms. Clare Short: Read it out.
  Dr. Marek: I have received a lot of letters. However, I shall quote just one paragraph from a letter from Mr. Gordon Donaldson, the general secretary of the Clwyd division, who has explained the Bill succinctly, in a way that the Government would not dare:
  "We see this Bill as a device to set aside the agreement on Pay and Conditions of Service negotiated at ACAS by the Unions and the Local Authority Employers. The Bill, if passed, may well ensure an end to peace and calm in the schools of your constituency".
  I take that very seriously indeed. That is why we have tabled the amendments. They would at least allow some negotiation.
  Mr. Caborn: Is my hon. Friend's constituent a teacher, and, if so, is he in primary or secondary education, or in some other part of the profession?
  Dr. Marek: He is a teacher, whether in a primary or secondary school I do not know. That criticism is levelled at me, and my hon. Friend has caught me out. However, I do know that Mr. Donaldson has long experience of the profession and is committed to raising education standards in Britain. He has the welfare of the children at heart, which the Government do not, whatever the ritual mouthings of various Conservative Members when they

  411
  ask, "What about the children?" If they were really concerned about the children, they would have good, well-paid teachers who considered themselves to be professionals with a job to do to the best of their ability, who had the equipment necessary to do it. The Government do not do such things. They try to cut money and lower morale as much as possible. Then, like the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey), they say, "Look at these dreadful comprehensives. Look at private schools instead. They are a lot better." I think that I have interpreted what the hon. Gentleman said reasonably correctly.
  8 pm
  I have a copy of a letter that was sent to the Secretary of State, signed by Doug McAvoy, the deputy general secretary of the NUT. It is an extremely good letter and I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) agrees. No doubt that is why Conservative Members made disdainful noises when I referred to it. That letter addressed all the problems, in particular the withdrawal of negotiating rights, and the amendments have been tabled to try to retrieve the position. The letter is also signed by Fred Smithies, general secretary of the National Association of Schoolmasters/ Union of Women Teachers, Geoff Beynon and Joyce Baird, joint general secretaries of the Assistant Masters and Mistresses Association and Peter Snape, general secretary of the Secondary Heads Association. It is dated 5 December 1986.
  I appreciate that some hon. Members have a copy of the letter, but some do not. It says:
  "Dear Secretary of State, The recent negotiations with the employers have covered four issues, one of which was that of future negotiating machinery."
  We know that if the Bill is enacted without these amendments there will be no future negotiating machinery. The letter continues:
  "Considerable publicity has been given to the differences of view held by the various teacher organisations on the total package agreed with the local authority employers. Whilst there may be some division of view about the whole of the package, there are no divisions among the four undersigned teacher organisations on the issue of negotiating machinery."
  Those are the major teacher organisations involved on the Burnham committee. They command much respect within that committee. Indeed, they command a majority within the Burnham committee.
  The letter goes on to say:
  "Section 7 of the provisional agreement sets out the agreed views of the teacher organisations together with employers."
  I shall not dwell on section 7, because that matter will be more properly addressed when we consider the next set of amendments. However, the letter is pertinent to the amendments that we are considering and the complete abrogation of the negotiating machinery.
  The letter continues:
  "It provides"—
  the agreement—
  "for a National Joint Council to deal with pay and other conditions of service for teachers and in so doing acknowledges the need for discussions with you on your role in the new negotiating machinery."
  The unions are even prepared to go to the Secretary of State and say that they would like to discuss the matter with him and come to an agreement. They are all reasonable, fair-minded and moderate people who want the best for our children and the country. They do not
  412
  want to see strife, and they want to see morale within the industry increase. Therefore, they are prepared to see the Secretary of State to consider what can be done.
  However instead we see a Bill that is being rushed through. It received its Second Reading on Monday, and today, two days later, we are discussing it in Committee and the Government think that there is so little in the Bill that it can be given its Third Reading before midnight. That is simply not true. The Bill is one of the most serious that I remember in my life on this planet, in as much as it takes negotiating rights away from employees.
  Mr. Caborn: My hon. Friend referred to a letter from the NUT to the Secretary of State. Does he have the reply from the Secretary of State? I am sure that the Committee would be pleased to be given its flavour.
  Dr. Marek: I do not have the reply, if indeed there was one. I could give way to the Secretary of State, but it might be better if the Secretary of State, if he has drafted a reply, or had one drafted for him, would give us its contents when he replies to the debate, which will not be long now.
  Mr. Caborn: If the Secretary of State does not do that, what does my hon. Friend think might have been in the Secretary of State's reply to the NUT?
  Dr. Marek: I do not think that I should attempt to give an opinion. I shall only say that I think that the reply is the Bill, and that is why we have had to put down the amendments that we are debating. We have the Bill. We have the Secretary of State's answer. I do not think that he will withdraw it, although that is what he should do. If he did, I am sure that my hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench would be happy not to press the amendments. Let us go away and see whether we can come to an agreement. If we can do that, there clearly will be no need to press the amendments.
  Let me finish the letter. Its final paragraph says:
  "We are united in our opposition to your Bill 'Teachers' Pay and Conditions' which removes from teacher organisations the right to direct negotiations. We urge you to reconsider your position and to accept the principle that any new negotiating machinery for teachers' pay and conditions of service should include direct negotiation."
  That is a sensible and reasonable request. The signatories are prepared to see the Secretary of State to hammer out a generally agreed solution.
  It is not too late to do that. I do not accept the reasons given by some Conservative Members that this has been going on for two years and that it is time to put a stop to it; that we should get a sword and cut the Gordian knot and impose a settlement. There is no need for that. Reasonable people would not go that way. However, in many of their acts the Government have not been reasonable or responsible. They have been guided by one aim above everything else—to give more privilege to the rich and to cut public spending for those who need it.
  Mr. Nellist: Some hon. Members may not be familiar with the Gordian knot. If that term is to be used again, it might be to the advantage of the Committee if my hon. Friend were to explain its background.
  Dr. Marek: I suspect that I would be ruled out of order. I see, Mr. Armstrong, that you are nodding vigorously. I have tried your patience on a number of occasions. However, I have tried to keep within the ambit of the

  413
  debate and to address myself to the amendments. However, I have not yet reached the amendments and I want to consider them in a little more detail later.
  I had a letter from the Secondary Heads Association. One might have thought that it would support the Secretary of State, as the National Association of Head Teachers has done. However, it takes a different line. That letter, dated 2 December, from T. P. Snape, the general secretary says:
  " 1. The SHA cannot accept the principle that Teachers Pay and Conditions should be determined by the Secretary of State advised by a Committee on which they have no representation as of right. While we accept that the Burnham Committee has outlived its usefulness, and that both pay and conditions should be negotiated in the same forum, we nevertheless remain strongly of the opinion that settlement imposed by the government, even after consultation with those who the Minister wishes to consult, is unjust, undemocratic, and in the last analysis, totally unworkable. You cannot legislate to ensure the commitment of teachers; our fear is that many currently in the profession will simply ignore any conditions imposed by statute, and that the Government will be impotent to do anything about it. In short, we see this proposed legislation as inevitably leading to further protracted periods of unrest and disruption in the schools."
  What can be clearer than that?
  Mr. Caborn: It is tragic.
  Dr. Marek: My hon. Friend says that it is tragic.
  "Tragic" might be the right word to describe it.
  Mr. Forth: It is magic.
  Dr. Marek: The hon. Gentleman says that it is magic. I do not know whether his selectors will think that it is magic when they see what is likely to happen. The lowering of morale, which is already low, will lead to even more difficulties. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will at least share with me the sentiment that we want better education for our children, not education that is continuously disrupted by outside influences.
  I have here, too, a letter dated 3 December 1986 from the National Association of Schoolmasters/Union of Women Teachers, the career teachers union. It is a long letter, which contains a very important passage relating to these amendments. It deals with the abolition of the negotiating and consultation procedures. It regards their abolition as the most damaging part of the Bill. I, too, believe that it is the most damaging part of the Bill. If the negotiating procedures were to be swept away, we should enter a period of discontent and difficulty in our schools.
  The NAS/UWT says:
  "On the question of negotiating machinery the NAS/UWT has led the way in calling for fundamental changes to the present structure. We recognise Burnham's failings and support proposals to unite negotiations of pay and conditions of service in one forum. We are very much opposed to the attempt to take determination of these matters completely out of the hands of the directly elected representatives of the nation's teachers."
  The NAS/UWT there says in unequivocal terms that it does not like this part of the Bill and the sweeping way of negotiating rights. Why, therefore, are the Government so obdurate? Would it not be possible for them to introduce a new clause in the other place that would allow for more than just consultation, even if it amounted to only the professional teachers' organisations having the right to representation on the advisory committee? However, that
  414
  has to be left for the schedule and I shall not delve into that topic, because if I were to do so I should be ruled out of order straight away.
  In its letter, the NAS/UWT also says:
  "Such a move would cause considerable resentment among the vast majority of teachers who naturally want the right to have their voice heard in detailed discussions over the complex issues of teachers' pay and conditions. A more realistic way of seeking to reduce future conflict in negotiations would be the establishment of a mechanism to maintain the level of teachers' pay in relation to their comparators. We note with considerable regret that such a guarantee is another important element missing in the recently"—
  8.15 pm
  Mr. Caborn: I am wondering, Mr. Armstrong, whether it would be possible for my hon. Friend to give the date of the letter from which he is quoting? The Committee is thankful to my hon. Friend for bringing it to its attention.
  The First Deputy Chairman: I hope that the hon. Gentleman does not intend to read another letter.
  Dr. Marek: I am nearly at the end of the letters from which I wish to quote, Mr. Armstrong. There is only one more. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn) for his timely intervention.
  The letter is dated 3 December. It then says:
  "We note with considerable regret that such a guarantee is another important element missing in the recently signed agreement."
  If the Secretary of State were to agree to the NAS/UWT's suggestion and provide machinery whereby salaries were fixed by means of comparators to arrive at a settlement, it would be accepted by the teaching profession. It is accepted by the police, the Army and the fire service. Why is it not possible to have something like that for the teaching profession? The NAS/UWT's suggestion is sensible. It would do away with the need for clause 1 and these amendments.
  Finally—
  Mr. Clement Freud: Oh, no.
  Dr. Marek: I hasten to assure the hon. Gentleman that I am referring only to the letters, not to the final part of my speech.
  The Assistant Masters and Mistresses Association has also written an interesting letter. It says:
  "As a matter of principle, however, we totally reject the suggestion that the Government's interest and your responsibilities are such as to justify the effective abolition of collective bargaining procedures between the organisations which represent teachers and their employing authorities.
  Not merely do we regard the rights of employees to negotiate direct with their employers as being a fundamental characteristic of a democratic society, we are convinced that orderly industrial relations can in the long term flow only from such a process."
  A professional organisation is again saying that it is convinced that if this is to be put right it can be put right only if we retain some form of negotiating procedure, to which the amendments address themselves.
  The union then says:
  "We therefore cannot accept that the Government is justified in seeking to confer upon you (and your possible successors)"—
  the letter is written to the Secretary of State—
  "the power to determine teachers' pay and conditions as you think fit. Nor do we accept that the consultative arrangements

  415
  the Bill proposes are at all adequate to ensure that teachers will consider your determinations to be equitable. It is, in our view, far more likely that teachers, deeply resentful of terms and conditions implemented by government imposition, will lose all impulse to contribute the commitment which lies beyond their purely contractual obligations."
  That is a new point that is not mentioned in the other letters. Teachers do much more than their contracts demand. It is upon that commitment that the quality of the education service relies.
  The letter contiues:
  "We urge the Government with all the sincerity at our command to reconsider what we are convinced to be an unwise and tragically counter-productive initiative. Because of the widespread interest in the matter, I am releasing this letter to the media."
  I hope that the Government will take that plea seriously. If the quality of teaching is to be over and above that which would be regarded by the Secretary of State as adequate, teachers have to be motivated. If they have to be motivated, they have to be satisfied with their terms and conditions of employment. They have to be satisfied with their salary. They must have high morale.
  If clause 1 is not amended—I hasten to add that even if it is, it will still be a bad Bill—those things will not be achieved. I have letters from teahers' organisations, from the SHA, the NAS/UWT, and the Assistant Masters and Mistresses Association, which spell it out clearly. They say, "Why cannot the Secretary of State give us something, and say that some negotiation will be allowed at a future stage?" If that cannot be done now in Committee, we shall do it later in the other place.
  I should like to refer next to the International Labour Organisation convention that was ratified by the United Kingdom in March 1980. It deals with negotiations and the rights of individuals acting collectively to take part in collective negotiations and agreements affecting their terms and conditions of service.
  Mr. Caborn: As my hon. Friend has now been speaking for nearly an hour, I wonder whether I can summarise that part of his speech. For a long time the Secretary of State has been rejecting the opinion of many professional bodies, and he is bulldozing legislation through the House of Commons against all that professional advice. On the other hand, he is trying to tell young people that teachers are responsible and should be looked up to, yet he is denigrating them by rejecting all that professional advice. Then he says that the teachers should act professionally towards the young people. Does that summarise the first hour of my hon. Friend's speech?
  Dr. Marek: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his succinct summary. I have taken a little longer, but it is an extremely important matter, to which the Government should pay attention. I am sorry that so far we have not been able to make them see the error of their ways in introducing the Bill.
  Mr. Nellist: I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn) will agree with this, because he was on the same Committee as I was. In a previous incarnation, when the Secretary of State was at the Department of the Environment, there was the same seeking of professional opinion and setting it aside during the abolition of the Greater London council and the metropolitan county councils. Perhaps history is repeating
  416
  itself, as can be seen in the first hour of the contribution by my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek).
  Dr. Marek: My hon. Friend is right. I do not know whether the Secretary of State is master in his own Department or whether he is doing the bidding of his mistress in No. 10 Downing street.
  Mr. Don Dixon: On a point of order, Mr. Armstrong. One of the Ministers who is now present will reply to the important points that my hon. Friend is making, yet the three of them are just talking.
  The First Deputy Chairman: The hon. Gentleman knows that that is not a matter for me.
  Dr. Marek: This is important. I should like to rephrase what I have just said. I hope that the Secretary of State is master in his own house, in the Department of Education and Science, and not doing the bidding of the Prime Minister at No. 10 Downing street. I suspect that he is doing the bidding of the Prime Minister, but it would be nice if, for once, he broke out and said, "In view of all the opinion in all parts of the country, let us treat the teachers like the grown-up, responsible beings they are and allow them negotiations and some say in how their profession should develop." That is all that we in the Opposition are asking for. Is it too much to have some movement by the Government on that issue?
  Let me make progress and refer to the ILO convention. I shall not be long. [HON. MEMBERS: "GO on."] The convention was ratified by the United Kingdom in March 1980. I am at a loss because I have two pieces of paper—a National Union of Teachers' briefing and a photocopy of the convention.
  Ms. Clare Short: Read it out.
  Dr. Marek: I will. Unfortunately, it is referred to as article 4 of ILO convention 98 in the NUT briefing, and in the photocopy it is article 7, under part IV:
  "Procedures for Determining Terms and Conditions of Employment".
  One must be right.
  Mr. Brian Sedgemore: It is article 7.
  Dr. Marek: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. In that case, I shall confine myself to article 7. It states:
  "Measures appropriate to national conditions shall be taken, where necessary, to encourage and promote the full development and utilisation of machinery for negotiation of terms and conditions of employment between the public authorities concerned and public employees' organisations, or of such other methods as will allow representatives of public employees to participate in the determination of these matters."
  Hon. Members should note the last few words. Where are they in the Bill? Where is participation mentioned? There is no participation. It is diktat by the Secretary of State for Education and Science. He will decide. He will consult if he wishes, make a recommendation, implement it and there will be no appeal. We shall all like it or lump it. That is the way that the Government are going. They will not succeed.
  I am not a lawyer. Perhaps some of my hon. Friends will develop this point later. I wonder whether we should be debating the amendments and whether the Bill should be before us in its present form because it is counter to the ILO convention ratified by the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Max Madden; My hon. Friend is making a serious point. There is a widespread belief that the Bill breaches international law, including an ILO convention. Like him, I am not a lawyer. Does he believe that the Attorney-General has been consulted on those matters by the Government and the Prime Minister? Has the Solicitor-General been consulted? If they have, does my hon. Friend think that they have offered a view and, if so, what does he think that view is?
  Mr. Barnett: Did he write a letter?
  Mr. Madden: Does my hon. Friend think that if they were consulted they were encouraged, perhaps over a weekend, to write a letter that was private and confidential? If that was so, is my hon. Friend not as surprised as I am that the letter has not been widely leaked and brought into the public domain via the Press Association?
  The First Deputy Chairman: Order. If the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) pursues that line, he will be out of order.
  Dr. Marek: I take your advice, Mr. Armstrong, before entering on that line. Let me make just one sort comment. I hope that some of my hon. Friends who know more about the legal side of these matters than I do will present to use an exposition of the reasons why clause 1 could be against the ILO convention.
  Mr. Nellist: I understand the reluctance of my hon. Friend to get involved in the Australian connection. One thing puzzles me. My hon. Friend may come to it later. It is the date of deratification of an ILO convention. A year or so ago I took part in many debates in the House on ILO convention 26, which was deratified by the Government. That convention protected the wages of people under 21. A year's notice had to be given before the ILO convention could be deratified. Would the Government have to give similar notice when applying for deratification of this ILO convention? If that was so, it might delay the passage of the Bill.
  Dr. Marek: My hon. Friend makes an important point. If I give the information on the convention, perhaps my hon. Friend can comment on it in his own speech if he catches your eye, Sir Paul. However, I do not know the answer to my hon. Friend's question. I know that some of the amendments seek to change the date of the Bill's implementation from, I think, 1987 to 1988, or from 1986 to 1987. I just wonder whether we were wise to table our amendments, as they may give the Government an excuse to deratify the convention, if that is what they have to do for the Bill to be enacted. However, I am an eternal optimist, and I still hope that the Government will see the folly of their ways and will change the Bill in some way.
  8.30 pm
  Mr. Freud: As we come into the second hour of the hon. Gentleman's speech, I wonder whether he can give the House some indication of its shape, so that we can pace ourselves.
  Dr. Marek: I am happy to reply to the hon. Gentleman. I apologise to him if he wishes to speak later in the debate.
  Mr. Freud indicated dissent.
  Dr. Marek: I see that he is shaking his head, but in case he does wish to speak, I shall try to bring my remarks to
  418
  an expeditious conclusion—[HON. MEMBERS: "NO".] The hon. Gentleman asked me about the shape of my speech, and the answer is that I am trying to get the Government to think again and to allow some sort of negotiation.
  Later, I shall go quickly through the amendments. Several options have been put forward, and I am grateful to my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench for thinking up so many possibilities, as they give the Secretary of State something to go on. But the right hon. Gentleman can also fall back on letters from the teachers' organisations promising co-operation and help, and asking why they, as sensible and reasonable people, cannot talk to him in order to hammer out an agreement.
  In pressing these amendments, we are trying to give the Government a partial way out. The Bill will still be bad, but if they accept some of the amendments or reject them but introduce similar amendments in the other place we shall, in some way, have succeeded. That is not a party point. I believe that there is unease among certain sections of the Conservative party. That unease may not be the same as the unease that we feel, but some Conservative Members are uneasy about the fact that if the Bill is unamended, it will give the Secretary of State draconian powers to impose conditions, and will enable him to do without any negotiating machinery. That is why we have tabled the amendments. We wish to enable some sort of negotiations to take place.
  Article 8 of the ILO convention is very short, and says:
  "The settlement of disputes arising in connection with the determination of terms and conditions of employment shall be sought, as may be appropriate to national conditions, through negotiation"—
  hon. Members should note the use of the word "negotiation"—
  "between the parties or through independent and impartial machinery, such as mediation, conciliation and arbitration, established in such a manner as to ensure the confidence of the parties involved."
  Article 8 says that there does not have to be negotiation. We, of course, would like negotiation, but if we cannot have that, article 8 at least offers a way out. It talks about "mediation, conciliation and arbitration". The confidence of the parties involved must be maintained, and the machinery must be impartial.
  But with respect to the Secretary of State, the Bill will not give teachers or their organisations any such confidence, because they will have no say about who is appointed to the advisory body. They will suspect that the whole business will be rigged, so that they will not only have no say but will be trodden on by the Government, just as they have been for the past five or six years.
  I do not apologise for reading out another two articles, as they are important in that they might make the Government think again. The ILO convention on the right to organise and collective bargaining, convention No. 98, was ratified by the United Kingdom in June 1950. I do not know whether we are withdrawing from it, but I should like to read out two of its articles. I shall be brief, but I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) will pursue the subject at greater length later.
  Articles 3 and 4 state:
  "Machinery appropriate to national conditions shall be established, where necessary, for the purpose of ensuring respect for the right to organise as defined in the preceding articles.

  419
  Measures appropriate to national conditions shall be taken, where necessary, to encourage and promote the full development and utilisation of machinery for voluntary negotiation"—
  the reference is to voluntary negotiation, but the word "negotiation" is still there—
  "between employers or employers' organisations and workers' organisations, with a view to the regulation of terms and conditions of employment by means of collective agreements."
  I could say a lot more, but it does not need saying. The four articles that I have read out are clear and succinct. The interpretation of them by any reasonable man in the street—
  Ms. Clare Short: What about the women?
  Dr. Marek: I apologise to my hon. Friend. In this House, the man includes the woman, and the woman includes the man.
  Any reasonable man or woman in the street would think that clause 1 runs counter to the spirit of the ILO conventions, and perhaps to the letter of the law and to conventions that the United Kingdom has signed in times past. I shall be interested to hear what the Secretary of State has to say. I hope that he will answer some of our points honestly and that he will not do what some Ministers do, in shifting the argument sideways and producing statistics that do not meet the criticisms made.
  I hope that he will not try to acquit himself like that, but that he will be honest and will tell us if some of our arguments have merit.
  Mr. Nellist: I do not wish to truncate this important part of my hon. Friend's speech on the ILO conventions. However, it occurred to me that other international treaties or obligations might be abrogated by the clause, especially if it is not amended. I was thinking of the European social charter. Does my hon. Friend have any material on that, so that he can at least enlighten Opposition Members?
  Dr. Marek: I do have some material, but I am sorry to say that it is not with me. Earlier, there must have been 14 or 15 Tory Members in the Chamber and only about six or seven Labour Members, but there are now so few Tory Members in the Chamber that a Labour Member has had to go and sit on their side in order to make up the numbers. I do not know whether that means that some Conservative Members are not interested in having a decent system of education. It is a great pity that so few Conservative Members should be present.
  Amendment No. 2 is merely consequential, but amendments Nos. 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 also appear on the Order Paper. The Secretary of State has no doubt read them and taken them into consideration. As my hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) said, those amendments would not introduce a form of negotiation, but they might open the way for that.
  Amendment No. 8 states:
  '(1A) Subsection (1) of this section shall come into effect after the making of an Order by the Secretary of State, and no such Order shall come into effect until after such period of consultation as appears to him to be reasonable following publication of proposals in the form of a White Paper as to arrangements for determining the remuneration of teachers.'.
  Proposals for the remuneration of teachers could no doubt be agreed between the professional organisations concerned, and between the local education authorities. I know the Government's complexion, so I am not asking
  420
  at this stage for free negotiations between the different parties. However, amendment No. 8 would allow an element of negotiation or at least, perhaps, consultation so that the professional organisations are heard and partake in any decisions.
  If the Secretary of State does not like that amendment, there is always amendment No. 9.
  Mr. Caborn: That is a good one.
  Dr. Marek: I agree with my hon. Friend, it is a good one. It states:
  "(1A) Subsection (1) of this section shall come into effect after the making of an Order by the Secretary of State, and no such Order shall be made until after the coming into effect of an agreement with respect to the remuneration of school teachers (and such other matters as the parties to that agreement may determine) agreed between organisations representing school teachers and their employers.'."
  I prefer that amendment. It may be that the Secretary of State prefers the previous amendment. I would be happy with the previous amendment if he thinks that amendment No. 9 goes too far.
  If the Secretary of State does not like those two amendments, there is amendment No. 10.
  Mr. Fatchett: Will my hon. Friend be negotiating with the Secretary of State?
  Dr. Marek: I am hoping to concentrate his mind on this matter. There is a serious point here. We have had letters and a lobby this afternoon and Labour Members have had much comment from their constituents and have received many letters about the state of our schools and the education system.
  Amendment No. 10 states:
  "No such Order shall come into effect until after the publication of a report by the Advisory Conciliation and Arbitration Service as to arrangements for the remuneration of teachers.'."
  I will not say too much about that, because we can discuss it with the next set of amendments. It is an important amendment. Let us see what ACAS has to say about it. ACAS is a body that I think has earned the respect of employees and employers. I hope that Conservative Members will agree with that. It is an extremely good body. Why not let it do something about this matter? I would be prepared to go so far as to let the Secretary of State give ACAS the terms of reference, but let ACAS see what it can produce in order to bring about an acceptable solution between the employers in one corner, the employees' organisations in the other and the Government in a third corner.
  If the Secretary of State does not like amendment No. 10, there is amendment No. 11. It was tabled, again, by my hon. Friends on the Front Bench. It states:
  "no such Order shall come into effect until after the laying before Parliament of a report by a Parliamentary tribunal of inquiry appointed to examine and report on arrangements for determining the remuneration of teachers.'."
  I would need to be persuaded that that would be the best way forward. I do not know whether parliamentary tribunals of inquiry would come up with the beef at the end of the day. I would prefer the ACAS solution or amendment No. 9. We do not know what is in the Secretary of State's mind. It may be that he would like amendment No. 11 so that he could have a quick, short, sharp parliamentary tribunal of inquiry which could produce a solution.

  421
  If the Secretary of State does not like that, there is amendment No. 12. It contains another suggestion. I shall not read it all, so that I do not detain the House too long. It states:
  "no such Order shall come into effect before the conclusion of consultation with associations of local education authorities, such organisations representing school teachers as appear to him to be concerned, and any local education authority with whom consultation appears to him to be desirable, and the laying before Parliament of a report of the results of such consultation.'."
  That in no way seeks to tie the Secretary of State's hands, it says that he can consult those whom he thinks are interested parties. Therefore, he can decide with whom he consults. It does not dictate to him in any way whatsover. Why can he not do that? He can consult and then he would have to lay before Parliament a report of the results of that consultation.
  I am not very keen on amendment No. 12. It is better to have amendment No. 12 than no amendment at all, but I would prefer some of the earlier amendments.
  Ms. Clare Short: Amendment No. 9.
  8.45 pm
  Dr. Marek: Yes, I think that Opposition Members consider amendment No. 9 to be the best so far.
  If the Secretary of State does not like any of those amendments, there is amendment No. 13.—[Interruption.] It is to clause 1. Again, I shall not read it all. It makes another suggestion as to what the Secretary of State could do. It states:
  "no such Order shall come into effect until after the laying before Parliament of a report by an independent inquiry into arrangements for determining the future remuneration of teachers whose members shall be appointed in equal proportions by the Secretary of State, organisations representing school teachers and associations of local education authorities."
  I do not think that the Secretary of State can plead ignorance about what to do, because there are plenty of amendments to choose from. I am not particularly keen on amendment No. 13. It would be a little bit stilted and could produce an ungainly sequence of events. Having said that, I would rather have amendment No. 13 than no amendment at all. My preference is still for amendment No. 9. I expect that the Secretary of State would not want that one, as I recommend amendment No. 10. That is probably the professional amendment that he could go for in his capacity.
  If he does not like amendment No. 13, there is amendment No. 14. It is slightly different. Whatever the Secretary of State does, an order should be laid before the House and approved by resolution of both Houses. I do not mind whether he does that, but he should do something along the lines of one of the amendments I have mentioned.
  There are many other amendments in the sequence that we are discussing. Amendment No. 17 is very clear to hon. Members who have read it. It states:
  "leave out lines 7 to 12 and insert ', together with conditions of employment, by measures which encourage and promote the full development and realisation of machinery for negotiation of terms and conditions of employment between local education authorities and teachers' unions and associations, or by such other methods as will allow representatives of such unions, associations and local authorities to participate in the determination of these matters.'."
  It is an extremely important amendment. The Secretary of State must do something that would allow professional teacher organisations and LEAs to be able to negotiate.
  422
  We must remember that at the end of the day it is the local authorities that provide most of the money in the teachers' pay bill, not the Government. It used to be different, but Government policies, such as they are, change. It is now the LEAs that pay the most. If we could change the local government system so that if LEAs want to pay over and above the odds they have to find the money from their own rate income, it would get rid of many problems. I recommend amendment No. 17 to the House. It is an eminently suitable amendment and I hope that it is passed.
  Amendment Nos. 18 and 19 are basically in the same tenor. Amendment No. 18 states:
  "no such provisions shall have the effect of altering the terms of any agreement as to remuneration or other matters between employers and organisations representing teachers agreed before the passage of this Act.'.
  That would be sensible, because the Bill will already do a lot of damage and there is no point rubbing salt into the wounds by retrospectively altering terms and conditions. Teachers do not know what the Secretary of State will do. The Bill gives him so many overriding and arbitrary powers that he can do almost anything. Clearly an amendment along the lines of No. 18 is very necessary. I hope that we will have a separate vote on that amendment as it is one of the most important amendments before us.
  Amendment No. 19 states:
  "line 11, leave paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert 'in the cases of school teachers and teachers in further education, by provisions agreed between, or settled in a manner agreed between teachers and their employers.'."
  I shall not say any more about that. It is a simple matter of trying to get agreement, consultation, participation and negotiation between the different parties. That is the only way that we will make progress in a civilised society. We ought to have moved from the slave state where one has people who dictate to others. We have moved on, I hope, at least in Europe, from the age of dictatorship. That was 40 years ago, not so long ago, but we should have moved on. We should move on now from the age of dictatorial Secretaries of State for Education and Science to having Secretaries of State for Education and Science who see their role as that of mediators, to guide, persuade and educate and to get the agreement, grudging or not, and voluntary co-operation of the parties involved. Unfortunately, we do not have that.
  Amendment No. 20, which is very short, is in the same vein and I commend it to the House. No doubt my hon. Friends will wish to comment on that important amendment in their contributions. I shall also not comment on amendment No. 22, which is on similar lines.
  If the Secretary of State does not like any of the amendments, there is new clause 7 or new clause 8, which is quite comprehensive. New clause 7 states:
  'Subject to the further provisions of this Act the remuneration and conditions of employment of teachers shall be in accordance with provisions agreed between or settled in a manner agreed between teachers and their employers.'.
  That is a straightforward statement of what we all want, but although it is only three lines it is probably too big for the Secretary of State to accept. Nevertheless, he should at least accept the principle and put down a properly drafted amendment giving reality to that principle at a later stage.
  New clause 8, which I shall not read out, offers another possibility if the Secretary of State does not like any of the amendments. I pay tribute to my hon. Friends on the Front Bench for tabling so many amendments and

  423
  offering the Secretary of State so many possibilities. There is certainly plenty of material in new clause 8 that the Secretary of State could usefully consider. I am sure that he has read it—it would be rude to suggest that he has not—and I shall be interested to hear his views.
  I have dealt at some length with the arguments against this draconian Bill. I have been a Member of Parliament for only three and a half years or so—
  Ms. Clare Short: It seems like a lifetime.
  Dr. Marek: —and I have never seen a Bill with such arbitrary and draconian powers. It might almost be described as Stalinist. The Secretary of State cannot wish to go down in history as one who acted like a dictator from the middle years of this century or a slave owner from an earlier stage in the development of civilisation. He ought to want to be remembered as the person who brought peace to the teaching profession, improved standards of education, raised the morale of teaching staff and improved the quality of equipment for our children, but so far I have heard nothing to suggest that that is his wish. What is wrong? Can he not think on his own rather than taking the Prime Minister's advise all the time? Will he not think of the children and of the teachers who want to serve those children and accept at least one of the amendments?
  Mr. Peter Bruinvels: I shall be brief. I do not intend to emulate the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) who spoke for about an hour and a half.
  Conservative Members have full confidence in the Secretary of State and in the Bill. We also have full confidence in the Secretary of State and in the Bill. We also have full confidence in the parents and in the children who will be going to school to be taught by teachers who will be better paid and have better promotion prospects, greater incentives and a genuine career structure, which the hon. Members for Wrexham and for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) seem to want to knock.
  Mr. Frank Cook: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Bruinvels: No. I have not been surprised by the cant and complaints from the Opposition—
  Mr. Madden: On a point of order, Sir Paul. You will recall that a number of points of order were raised at the beginning of the Committee. The Leader of the House said that there had been difficulties at the printers so that the amendments were not available for members of the Committee until 11.30 am today. I should be most grateful if you would make inquiries to see what the printing situation is tonight. Hon. Members will clearly be anxious to have copies of Hansard available at the correct hour tomorrow morning so that everyone can read the excellent speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek). We shall also require further copies of amendments that have not been debated by them. Perhaps you could intervene to brief us on the printing situation, as it is clearly a matter of great concern to the Committee.
  The Second Deputy Chairman (Sir Paul Dean): The hon. Gentleman answered his first point when he said that the Leader of the House had dealt with the position regarding the amendments which are available. I am sure that the Official Report will do its very best to keep up with our proceedings. I cannot add to that.
  Mr. Bruinvels: The hon. Member for Durham, North and his hon. Friends have introduced the Opposition
  424
  amendments, none of which I or, I believe, any of my hon. Friends support. Nevertheless, it is the right of the Opposition to bring forward amendments for debate.
  What depresses me is the negative, defeatist way in which they have done so. Their attitude mirrors that of the NUS—[HON. MEMBERS: "Who?"] The National Union of Students has also always used bully-boy tactics. The National Union of Teachers, for which the Opposition seem to be the mouthpiece, wants peace on its own terms rather than on terms that will help the majority of teachers. The NUT has only 216,000 members while the National Association of Schoolmasters/Union of Women Teachers has 122,000 and the Assistant Masters and Mistresses Association has 118,000, so the NUT no longer represents all the teachers.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Bruinvels: After the events in Nottingham and Coventry, it is clear that all the amendments before us have been tabled in conjunction with the NUT in a bloody-minded attempt to prevent any kind of agreement being reached. As my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste) implied earlier , it is obviously a campaign to gain electoral advantage. They will not win. In all the leaflets that, unfortunately, have been quoted by the hon. Member for Wrexham including one called "The Right to Negotiate", there was not one reference to the children. That is what annoys me most.
  The hon. Gentleman mentioned Mr. Fisher, the Minister for Education; but Mr. Fisher immediately went on to say that we all want peace in our schools. Leaving out that reference does not fool me because the attitude of the NUT is not likely to lead to peace. I want our schools to be free of union battles on school ground. While Labour Members continue their disruptive campaign, there will be nothing but continued unrest. Our children are suffering.
  There have been negotiations at ACAS, but it has not been helpful to us. The Government put forward five allowances, yet ACAS put forward only two. The great concern is that ACAS could not formulate the important salary structure that we need with adequate financial incentives for all teachers to ensure that each teacher has genuine promotion prospects. There is nothing wrong with that and we should be encouraging that. Therefore, the problems are to be blamed totally on the teachers' unions and the local authority employers. The negotiations have taken two years, during which there has been recurrent disruption in the classrooms.
  9 pm
  ACAS came in because a Burnham committee agreement could not be reached because the NUT held the majority on the committee. I am glad that Opposition Members accept that Burnham has broken down, although if they did not like it, why did they not put forward an alternative? A statutory body is required, and my right hon. Friend will introduce that. We want the work of ACAS to be looked at again. We want to be sure that any extra spending put forward is the result of careful thought.
  As I said on Monday, the most important thing is that £600 million is on the table. If the hon. Member for Durham genuinely cares about a peaceful solution, he should encourage and support the Government's proposal. There would then be no need for these

  425
  amendments. Indeed, I hope that there will be no need for the Bill. Certainly, the second largest teachers' union—the NAS/UWT—has been very unhelpful in its approach. My right hon. Friend's package gives a genuine long-term pay structure which guarantees adequate differentials and a clear definition of professional duties.
  The Labour party calls for free collective bargaining, but on whose terms? We all believe in free collective bargaining, but that would not happen because the NUT would try to dominate and we would not achieve as good a settlement as is now on the table, and which the parents in my Leicester, East constituency totally support. The Opposition are working the whole time with the employers deliberately attempting to undermine the Government's proposals. They never think about the children. I am prepared to give way to the hon. Member for Durham, North if he can tell me exactly how and in which way his negotiations with the employers' organisations took place and to what purpose. I know that the last time that he was challenged on that point he left the Chamber. It is a worrying matter.
  We need a speedy solution, but that will come about only with the co-operation of the Opposition. It is not simply a question of passing the Bill—all Governments depend on good co-operation from Oppositions. I would have thought that the time was right for the Opposition to withdraw their amendments. They must realise that there is no point in altering the terms—it will not work, because they no longer have the total support of the teachers' unions. We know the ACAS result and the position of parents. Letters have come from parents who want a speedy settlement.
  I have had only two letters from teachers in my constituency during the whole of the dispute, which shows that the majority of teachers in my constituency are happy with the terms on the table. They would be surprised to hear that the Opposition are trying to keep the House up throughout the night, trying to put forward a number of amendments that will result in the opposite to what Conservative Members want, which is peace and the guarantee that our children will be better taught and our teachers offered better promotion prospects.
  As for new clauses 7 and 8, I do not trust the unions to bring forward a genuine negotiated settlement which the Government can afford, which teachers genuinely want and which will guarantee the promotion prospects that we want. It is possible for unions to tell us what to do. That was the order of the day when Labour was in power. The headline, "Turning the Clock Back" on the NUT document describes precisely what will happen if we fail to pass the Bill.
  We need the Bill so quickly because Burnham did not work. We have here the legislative details necessary to introduce a new negotiating structure. The Bill will enable the Secretary of State to set teachers' pay and conditions of service by regulation. These are wrecking amendments which will do nothing but harm to children.
  Mr. Dixon: On a point of order, Sir Paul. The hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels) has said that these are wrecking amendments. Is that not a reflection on the Chair?
  The Second Deputy Chairman: I do not think that the hon. Member was intending to reflect on the Chair and I am sure that he might wish to rephrase his remarks so that it is quite clear that there was no such reflection.
  Mr. Bruinvels: There is no question of my making any such allegation. It is the speeches of Opposition Members which are wrecking the Bill.
  The Remuneration of Teachers Act 1965 needs to be repealed, and the interim advisory committee should be put in place immediately so that we can have peace in our schools again. It is a sad reflection on society that, for political advantage, certain elements are deliberately undermining the professional attitude of teachers and their special relationship with children. Such a cheap political advantage will not be acceptable to the vast majority of parents.
  The level of pay is clearly determined by the Bill, and it provides a proper salary structure for all teachers. The Bill's temporary nature has been missed completely. The hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Barnett) certainly missed it. The Bill repeals the Remuneration of Teachers Act 1965 and makes temporary provision with respect to the remuneration and other conditions of employment of school teachers, and it extends only to England and Wales. It is clearly temporary and has been introduced because of the callous approach of Opposition Members. [Laughter.] The truth always hurts. The Opposition have failed to encourage a satisfactory settlement. Under the Government's proposals, 50 per cent. of all teachers will be eligible for promotion and incentives. That must be the best way forward.
  Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: I am sure that my hon. Friend and the Opposition are aware that, at the moment, there are 105,000 promotion posts, that under Labour's proposals there would only be 85,000 and that, under ours, there would be 140,000. Our proposals provide incentives for people who will be heads of department and for good classroom teachers who want to remain classroom teachers.
  Mr. Bruinvels: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The proposals advanced by the employers and the unions will enable only 80,000 teachers to receive promotion.
  Mr. Frank Cook rose—
  Mr. Bruinvels: Under our proposals, 140,000 teachers will be eligible for promotion. That will end two years of misery and guarantee peace in classrooms. Moreover, our proposals will encourage career development, particularly in primary schools which the NUT proposals leave out altogether. Over 20 months, teachers will get a 25 per cent. salary rise, which is £600 million extra, in incentives to ensure that our children will be properly taught, to reward the good classroom teacher, the teachers who are prepared to take on extra responsibility, those who have skills and qualifications that are in short supply and those who move into jobs in particularly difficult schools.
  There has been criticism of the idea that there should be some special arrangement for those schools in difficult areas. I do not know why the NUT is opposed to this. It is terribly important to get the better—
  The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is now anticipating a later amendment. While a wide-ranging debate is in order on this group of amendments, that point will be covered later.
  Mr. Bruinvels: My main purpose was to look at the main negotiating machinery and to show how the Bill, particularly clause 1, which will abolish the Remuneration of Teachers Act 1969, will guarantee important incentive posts to secure the jobs of professional teachers and ensure peace in our schools. I bow to your guidance, Sir Paul.
  Mr. Frank Cook: On a point of order, Sir Paul. While you are kindly offering advice and guidance to the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels), will you remind him that this is the Committee stage of the Bill's proceedings, and that it is customary in Committee to give way to Opposition Members who wish to make points that are relevant to what is being said? This is not a Second Reading debate, and it is a abuse of the procedures of the House for the hon. Gentleman to act as he is. I should like your guidance, Sir Paul.
  The Second Deputy Chairman: This is a matter for whichever Member has the Floor, whether we are in the House or in Committee, and the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels) appears not to wish to give way. Perhaps the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) will try again.
  Mr. Fatchett: Further to that point of order, Sir Paul, I would not wish to challenge your judgment, but we run the House on the basis of a certain consensus and a set of conventions, and it is normal in Committee for hon. Members to give way to others who wish to make points and develop arguments. This is what we are trying to do. The hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels) has already given way to one of his hon. Friends and surely, as a matter of courtesy, he should also give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook), who has sat here through the debate and is keen to intervene on this point. You will have noticed, Sir Paul, that during the debate Labour Members have given way at all times at every request from the Conservative Benches. Surely, under the conventions of the House, it is necessary for Conservative Members to give way now.
  Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Further to that point of order, Sir Paul. The hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) is being extremely economical with the truth. The hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) was not here for the major part of the debate. He has only just come in.
  The Second Deputy Chairman: I am sure that the Committee knows that it is a matter for the Member who has the Floor to decide whether he gives way.
  Mr. Madden: Further to that point of order, Sir Paul. Will you confirm that there is no qualifying period for an hon. Member to attend the Committee before he is allowed to speak, intervene or make any other contribution?
  The Second Deputy Chairman: I think hon. Members are seeking to make debating points rather than points of order for the Chair.
  Mr. Bruinvels: I was not giving way, because I have been sitting in the Chamber since 2.30, and many Labour Members have been here for only a short time. If the debate were held in the quietness in which it should be held, because it is a serious matter, my attitude to giving way would be different. This is an important debate. We are talking about the future of our schools and we are not here to make cheap, party political points.
  428
  As I come to the end of my contribution, Sir Paul, it is only right that I should place on record the fact that the amendment and the negotiating machinery proposed by the hon. Member for Durham, North will not help the Bill. I want peace in our schools. I hope that one day the Opposition will also aspire to that aim and contribute to what I would call a concordat to achieve the best possible deal. I believe that the best possible deal has arrived with this Bill.
  It is important that we get the maximum money possible into the schools as quickly as possible to ensure that the unions curb their industrial disputes and that teachers are properly promoted, better paid and have the best possible promotion prospects. We must ensure that the children are not forgotten and that there is peace in our schools. We must ensure that children will no longer be a political football to be used by the Opposition.
  9.15 pm
  Mr. Nellist: It is incredible that any Tory Member of Parliament, and especially the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels), can assert that he is not here to make cheap party political comments. I counted nearly 23 such comments in the hon. Gentleman's speech, and I shall refer to two of them. At one point, the hon. Gentleman blamed the teachers for the deterioration of their pay and conditions. He said that it was all their fault. Precisely the opposite is the case.
  The Government have turned education into a lottery, and schools in the midlands and other parts of the country have to hold raffles and collections for the most elementary necessities, such as books, before they can begin to think about transport and out-of-school activities, which some Tory Members describe as luxuries. The Government are responsible for driving education into that position. The hon. Member for Leicester, East said that he believed in free collective bargaining, yet tonight he is opposing amendments and supporting a clause which is designed to remove the very essence of free collective bargaining from the relationship between the teachers unions and the employers.
  If the clause had tried to emulate for the majority of children in the state sector the level of services and the teacher-pupil ratio that exists in Eton—a school attended by many Tory MPs, where the ratio is eight children per teacher—perhaps we could have had a serious debate. There might have been "bipartisan agreement" to bring such a measure forward. If the Bill had been designed to control not the salaries of teachers, but those of the spivs in the City who earn £500 an hour, or £8 a minute, to rook people of their livelihoods through speculation and share swindles, there could have been a "measure of agreement" in the Chamber on a means to control such salaries.
  The clause specifically attacks workers in some of the most arduous and demanding occupations in Britain today. A friend of mine who is a teacher once described teaching a class of 25 or so as education. He described teaching a class of 35 to 40 as crowd control because there is no time to develop the potential of each and every child in a class of that size.
  Those are the problems that should have been addressed by the Bill. Instead, the Bill removes the control of negotiations on conditions and wages from the hands of joint negotiating machinery and puts it into the hands of the Secretary of State. The Bill will do nothing to

  429
  motivate children in Coventry or elsewhere, who face a difficult enough position already. Although it is the teachers' job to motivate the youngsters, they know that a goodly proportion of them are being motivated for the dole queue.
  That point was perhaps most graphically illustrated in Today, a newspaper from which I do not particularly like to quote, given its record over the past few weeks and its comments on the Labour party and the Labour movement. During the Knowsley, North by-election, a reporter from Today spoke to a group of 10-year-olds and was shocked to hear from one that he saw no reason whatsoever why he should carry on working to pass examinations purely to increase the intellectual level of dole queue chat. Any Government who reduce the aspirations of youth to that level of cynicism ought to be condemned for their hypocrisy.
  Instead of addressing the problem of cynical youth, unfortunately we have to deal with the attempt by the Secretary of State to remove the right to negotiate pay and conditions. That right has been guaranteed, as hon. Members have said, for 67 years by previous legislation. The clause will remove that right and allow the Secretary of State to appoint an advisory committee. That is not surprising. Even during my short term as a Member of Parliament I have seen moves in that direction. The Secretary of State for Social Services appoints 3,000 members of family practitioner committees as well as those who run the district and other health authorities within the Health Service. The Prime Minister has the power of patronage to appoint thousands of people, such as bishops and the heads of the BBC. The Lord Chancellor has within his patronage tens of thousands of various judicial appointments. We are not surprised that the essence of clause 1 is that the Secretary of State for Education and Science wants to get in on the act and have his own power and patronage in appointing new committees.
  Mr. Fatchett: My hon. Friend could also refer to the residuary bodies in local government. They take away democratic rights. The members are also appointed by the Secretary of State.
  Mr. Nellist: I am cautious about how far I can stray from this group of amendments. For many months, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Mr. Fatchett) and I served together on many evenings such as this, stretching into many mornings such as tomorrow, considering the local government legislation which abolished the GLC and metropolitan councils.
  The clause is not, as was said by one or two Tory Members, about ending the teachers' dispute which has continued for the past two years. That would require far more resources than the Secretary of State has so far been able to release. It is about applying to the education service in 1987 the draconian measures that were taken against the workers of GCHQ a couple of years ago. Why does the Secretary of State believe that all members of the NUT are spies and, therefore, should be treated in the same way as he attempted to treat the workers of GCHQ? Not all of them went to Cambridge. Not all of them went to the same university as those who have have been picked up for taking part in that side occupation, most of whom, I suspect, are card-carrying members or sympathisers of the Tory party, anyway. The attack on GCHQ has been
  430
  emulated in education because the Secretary of State has been unable to convince the majority of teachers of the arguments that he has put forward to end the dispute.
  I notice that there has been a recent ballot of teachers in Scotland. Some 89 per cent. of teachers took part, 84 per cent. of whom rejected the current deal on offer. From discussions today with representatives of the Coventry branch of the National Union of Teachers, I suspect Coventry will emulate those precentages in turnout and rejection in the ballot this week. The Secretary of State, unable to convince the majority of teachers of his arguments, intends, through this clause, to abolish their right of negotiations, just as he did with the GLC and metropolitan authorities. When the Secretary of State was an Environment Minister, he restricted the democratic right of election to those local govenment bodies.
  Clause 1 abolishes the existing machinery contained in the remuneration of Teachers Act 1965. It gives powers to the Secretary of State to impose any pay structure and conditions of service that he likes on teachers in England and Wales. Later amendments and clauses will deal with the advisory body. This clause is the response of the Secretary of State to his inability to force agreement from teachers.
  It is important to ask why the right hon. Gentleman has been unable to gain such agreement. Everything on offer to the teachers will worsen their conditions of service and will fail to maintain their existing standard of living. The legislation does nothing to re-establish the Houghton parity that existed in the early 1970s. To achieve that, in today's language, a teacher at the top of scale 1 would need to earn £16,000 a year. The Nottingham agreement, which is under discussion, would mean that a scale 1 teacher would not reach an income of £15,000 until 1996. Many people, including some who are personal acquaintances of mine, have been teachers for many years but still take home only £100 at the end of their demanding working week. It will be 10 years before they are close to where they should be this year in terms of parity with Houghton. They are chucking that agreement out of the window. The Secretary of State has not convinced them. He knows the background to the situation, so he is trying, from above, arbitrarily to impose these provisions.
  Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware that the proposals of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State bring back Houghton in real terms. A graph of the number of teachers leaving the profession in the past 20 years shows that the problem occurs when teachers, especially males, are between 26 and 28, when they are beginning to acquire family responsibilities. It is important to give the money not just to those who are starting in the profession—they have the least responsibility—but to those who are beginning to acquire more responsibility. My right hon. Friend's proposals will provide incentives to those 26 to 28-year-olds at the time when they need them most, to keep them in the profession where they are of most value and when they have become nicely accustomed to the job. We do not want to lose them then.
  Mr. Nellist: The hon. Lady began by saying that the deal of the Secretary of State restores real levels in the Houghton pay structure, which it does not. It certainly does not do so for the whole teaching profession, except over a considerable period. That is why those at the

  431
  bottom of the scale are most likely to be the ones who most strongly reject the offer on the table. The hon. Lady is at liberty to develop her point further. I do not regard the deal as a basis for adequately rewarding young teachers, whether single or married, in an arduous profession.
  The deal on offer is a productivity deal. It gives, for example, the head teachers in schools more power to rewrite job descriptions annually, or more frequently if required. It links appraisal to pay—a link that teachers have resisted for years. They have not been unwilling to discuss appraisal, but they do not want it in the same package as the restoration of pay levels. The appraisal provision gives authorities the power to withhold a pay rise for a year if the previous year's record of service was unsatisfactory. It is a pity that there are not similar pay arrangements for Tory Members of Parliament. We could judge them by unemployment. Their pay levels would have declined savagely in the past seven years as unemployment has risen.
  I do not have time to develop other aspects, such as the attempted clawbacks on cover and supply and the increase in the working year. In summary, set against an average 8 per cent. increase in salaries, and a 10 per cent. increase, on a contractual basis, of the hours that teachers are expected to work, the offer gives a pay cut. I do not condemn any teachers who reject such an offer. Having failed to convince teachers of the merits of the argument, the Secretary of State is attempting arbitrary imposition from above. He is not willing to concede the necessary £1,700 flat rate increase for 1986–87 which will be necessary to satisfy teachers' claims. Of course, the right hon. Gentleman follows in the footsteps of the former Secretary of State for Transport and the present chairman of the Tory party in seeking, in clause 1, effectively to fragment, neuter and castrate the teachers trade unions.
  The Secretary of State does not want active and capable trade unions which are competent and able to defend the interests of their members. The Bill is also an indicator of the failure of the economic system which the Secretary of State defends. The Government cannot give reasonable pay and conditions to a large percentage of the public service work force and therefore fear the continuation of the defence of those workers by their trade unions. Therefore, clause 1 attacks the role of the trade unions.
  9.30 pm
  The Secretary of State will not succeed. He is already not succeeding and the Bill is only days old. The Bill is drawing the teaching unions together again, when during the past three or four weeks they were perhaps divided on tactics and on which form of deal to accept. It is escalating the radicalisation of the rank and file in ordinary teachers associations throughout the country. If, during the next two weeks, there was a political fund ballot in the teaching unions, as there has been in 40 unions under the Trade Union Act 1984, I would not put money on which way that ballot would go.
  It is worth making one small point about the radicalisation and the effect of such a draconian measure on the entire profession and on the youths and students in education. Twenty-two miles is not that great a distance for youth in Britain not to be aware of the struggle that has been going on during the past seven or 10 days against a Tory Government across the water who attempted to introduce parallel draconian measures against the university sector in France.
  432
  I do not discount the fact that many lessons may be learnt by people in the profession and by the youths and children who are studying or being taught. Lessons will be rubbing off from the experience of the past seven or 10 days of the action of the ranked mass of students in France against the French Tory Government and their attempt to introduce new laws. The Government should be aware that if they continue down the road of attacking education, the Health Service and the welfare state in general, they run the risk of similar disaffection spreading among working-class people and youth in Britain.
  The Government have been claiming that Burnham as a negotiating machinery is not working, but instead of having discussions to extend or change the existing machinery, the Secretary of State is rather like a child who has an argument in a playground—he is taking his ball home. He has decided that he will alter the rules of the game by eliminating that level of negotiation. He is attempting in two days of parliamentary time entirely to abolish the existing system of negotiation.
  I do not necessarily complain about the short time that the Secretary of State is taking. I am not all that fussed—although I shall be here all night if he wishes to stay—by his taking only two days to try to shove this measure through Parliament, because in earlier incarnation, when he was a Minister at the Department of the Environment, we spent a few months together discussing the abolition of the GLC and the metropolitan county councils.
  I learnt a lot from the Government and the Secretary of State, as he now is, from that Bill. I learnt, for example, what enabling legislation was all about from the last six sections of what is now the Local Government Act 1985. It means that the Secretary of State can come in with a two or three-line statement to establish a principle and follow it a few months later with an Order of some description to put flesh on what he intends to implement. It would be useful for a future Labour Government to consider, for example, the abolition of the House of Lords, or the sweeping necessary extension of public ownership in Britain, based on the enabling legislation clauses in the last quarter of the Local Government Act.
  Similarly, I am not that fussed that the right hon. Gentleman is trying to get the Bill through in two days of parliamentary time, because I can envisage occasions under the next Labour Government when we can use the precedent of the speed at which the Secretary of State wishes to proceed today with this anti-working class measure to enact Socialist legislation—for example, on a national minimum wage, on shorter working hours, on lower retirement age or other measures to reduce unemployment or increase the living standards of working people.
  I and many others believe that this clause paves the way for us to adopt the same sort of attitude to Conservative policies as the Government have towards the people whom we represent.
  We must also watch carefully to see whether clause 1 will pave the way for attacks on other workers in the public service and in nationalised industries. In that I include doctors, nurses and other workers in the Health Service, the bin men, the social services and housing staff on local authorities, people in the ambulance service, the fire service and the other services which my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham—[Interruption.] I mean my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek). The right

  433
  hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) is the one with 35 jobs. As far as I am aware, my hon. Friend has only one job—as a full-time Member of Parliament.
  Will the people on his list and the short list that I have read out be the next to be attacked by the Government? Those workers should be supporting the teachers in their battle to defend their present system of free negotiations.
  Mr. Greenway: On a point of order, Sir Paul. Is this speech not extremely wide of the amendment and out of order?
  The Second Deputy Chairman: This is a very wide debate on a series of amendments dealing with consultation and procedures. As yet, I have heard nothing out of order.
  Mr. Nellist: Thank you, Sir Paul. I shall leave a couple of points that I had planned to make and return to them later. It will be a long evening.
  Dr. Marek: My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point. We are at the top of the slippery slope. If we allow the teachers' negotiating rights to be swept away, who will be next in line? The precedent is being set by the most centralising Government this century.
  Mr. Nellist: I agree with my hon. Friend. Not only the hon. Members who are listening to the debate and the few people in the Galleries at either end of the Chamber, but those who read the report of the debate when it is published, probably on Friday morning, should take heed of my hon. Friend's point about a waiting list. It is rather like one of Gilbert and Sullivan's operettas. The Prime Minister "has a little list"—only it is a long list—of unions and public services which she wants to take on, using this Bill as a precedent. They include especially the public service workers whom my hon. Friend and I have tried to name.
  The clause is an attack on the basic democratic right of free collective bargaining. As a worker and active trade unionist in British Leyland in the late 1970s, I opposed a similar attack when the Labour Government mistakenly took the road of an incomes policy. I am equally opposed to it today. The right of free collective bargaining, like the right to strike, the right to vote and every other right in what is supposed to be a democracy—in so far as it can be a democracy under a Tory Government in the late 1980s—has been won by the struggle of generations of trade unionists, stretching back at least over a century. For a Tory Government to abrogate one of those rights is an attack on a central feature of democracy.
  I understand that the National Union of Teachers has lodged a formal complaint with the International Labour Organisation that the Bill breaches at least conventions 98 and 151, together with the others mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham. It is a good idea to launch such a formal complaint and to draw attention to the fact that the Government are trying to abrogate their duties under the conventions, but they did the same a year ago with ILO convention 26 when, at a stroke, they decided to remove the right of all workers aged under 21 to a legal minimum wage. Britain was the first industrialised country to do that. I suspect that they will do that again with this Bill, and equally arbitrarily.
  The trade unions, particularly their leaders, should draw attention to that abrogation, but they must also gear
  434
  up trade union members to oppose the Bill's implementation throughout Britain. The Government do not care about their international obligations. This is the Government who have been taken to the International Court of Justice in the Hague at least a dozen times for reneging on international conventions. This is the Government who rewarded the Commonwealth's stand, such as it was, on South Africa and sanctions by introducing visas for citizens of Commonwealth countries. This is not a Government who particularly worry about breaking international conventions if to do so assists in breaking the strength and cohesion of Britain's trade union movement.
  I have no doubt that the Minister's advisers discussed the Bill and thought of it as a way of emasculating the teachers' organisations and putting them under the control of the Secretary of State. I hope that the Secretary of State will consider the obverse of that coin. All the feeling of grievance and disillusion will grow if teachers' morale is not raised by a proper level of remuneration, and that will no longer be directed towards any form of semi-independent negotiating machinery. It will all be directed at the Secretary of State, because he will be seen as the person in charge. He will be the one who is saying, "The buck stops here." That is hardly a recipe, should he want it, for the depoliticisation of the teachers' dispute. It is the opposite.
  The Bill, particularly clause 1, removes the basic democratic right to free collective bargaining. Instead, it substitutes direct control by the Secretary of State. In that sense clause 1 is an undemocratic and reactionary clause in an undemocratic and reactionary Bill. But then again, that is well in line with general Tory philosophy.
  The Bill may well go through the House of Commons. I suspect that that will not be tonight or tomorrow morning, but, given the Government's 140 majority, it will go through, but its only success will be in radicalising and politicising more teachers, taking them away from any support that they, as individuals, may have given to the Tory party and its candidates at election time. In that sense, if what the Secretary of State intends by clause 1 is a solution to the teachers' dispute, it will be counterproductive. In the Lobby tonight I shall support the amendments put forward by the Opposition Front Bench and oppose the Bill through all its stages.
  Mr. Madden: On a point of order, Sir Paul. I regret that I have to raise a point of order at this stage when the Committee clearly wishes to move towards a vote on the amendment. However, I am concerned that the Committee has now been in session for over five hours and the Press Association reports that the Committee could well sit all night and well into tomorrow on amendments tabled by the Labour and alliance parties, yet during those five hours not one Member of the Social Democratic party has stayed in the Committee for more than a few minutes, and the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Freud), apart from one brief intervention in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) asking how long he intended to speak, has made no contribution at all. The alliance Members have asked for the microphones to be shifted, and so on. Are we to hear from alliance Members during the debate?
  The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows well that that is a matter for debate, not for the Chair.
  Mr. Kenneth Baker: I can only say that some false points of order are better than others and I very much echo what the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) has said as a point of debate rather than a point of order.
  The hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) rightly reminded the House that the last time that we were on a Committee together was when we considered the Bill that I took through to abolish the GLC and other metropolitan county councils. I remember him saying that we would get that Bill through the House of Commons but that we would never get it through the other place. I was also told by him that as soon as those councils were abolished, civilised life as we knew it would disappear in the cities. Those county councils have been abolished for nine months and no one has noticed that they have gone.
  Mr. Nellist: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Baker: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that it will not be the policy of the Birmingham Labour party to bring back the West Midlands county council. It was glad to see it go.
  Mr. Nellist: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Baker: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I shall not. He spoke for 20 minutes.
  Mr. Nellist: Will the right hon. Gentleman please give way?
  Mr. Baker: Very well.
  9.45 pm
  Mr. Nellist: Does the Secretary of State accept that I never said in Committee—he can check this in Hansard—that he would never get it through the other place? Furthermore, I never predicted the right hon. Gentleman's apocalyptic scenario. However, I referred to the fact, when dealing with services such as transport, that the deregulation of buses and the abolition of the metropolitan county councils would lead to the severe rundown of transport services. The Secretary of State can in no way deny that there has been a rundown of those services.
  Mr. Baker: I, too, refer the hon. Gentleman to Hansard. He made dreadful forecasts about what would happen if there were no metropolitan county councils, including the West Midlands county council.
  The hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) made what could be described as a memorable speech. It consisted of reading the contents of my in-tray. I thought of writing a letter to him, but that would just encourage him. I thought, too, that he was getting into training to be the next general secretary of the Post Office Engineers' Union. The hon. Gentleman and I—I hope that this will not irrevocably damage his career in the Labour party—have occasionally played bridge together. Might I suggest that, if he could find another three to make up a four, he would find the next few hours very enjoyable—and so would we, if he were successful.
  The hon. Gentleman referred thoroughly to the amendments. That, at least, was original in this debate. All of them have a common theme, as was admitted by the hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice). In one way or another, all the amendments are dilatory and would delay the repeal of the Remuneration of Teachers Act 1965. Amendment No. 8 asks for a White Paper; amendment No. 9 says that nothing should happen until
  436
  there is an agreement; amendment No. 10 asks for a report from ACAS; amendment No. 11 asks for a parliamentary tribunal of inquiry report; amendment No. 13 asks for an independent inquiry.
  The hon. Member for Durham, North rightly said that the object of these amendments is to delay progress on the Bill until certain things have happened. These amendments would create a plethora of delaying devices and would lead to indecision. We have heard a great deal about the new negotiating procedures involving the Secretary of State, but new clause 7 does not involve the Secretary of State: "All we want is an agreement between the trade unions and the employers." New clause 8, as I interpret it, transforms the interim advisory committee into an arbitration tribunal.
  These amendments would cause delay. The Government believe that early action is needed if there is to be a sensible resolution of the problems in our schools. The Opposition seek to prevent such a resolution by placing all kinds of difficulties in the way of repeal of the 1965 Act. The amendments are not needed in order to provide for teachers' pay to continue until the existing arrangements are superseded by new provisions, as provided for in clause 1(2). I have made it clear to the House that I am willing to continue discussions with the local education authorities and the unions in the hope that a sensible result can be agreed. I told the House on Monday last that, if an accommodation can be reached within the financial framework that has already been announced, which provides for a proper careers structure for all teachers, I should be delighted to lay the necessary order before the House giving effect to that agreement.
  Ms. Clare Short: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Baker: I shall give way in a moment.
  There is no need for these amendments. The Government will act quickly to give effect to an acceptable conclusion. One union has asked to see me this Friday and another union has asked to see me next week. The Government will act quickly to establish the interim advisory committee that is so necessary if we are to avoid a repetition of this damaging and unnecessary dispute.
  Several of my hon. Friends referred to the collapse of the Burnham negotiating committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) referred to the inevitable consequences, following the breakdown of a system that is inherently unstable. My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) talked of Burnham blunted with abuse. My hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, South-West (Mr. Madel) urged me to act in the interests of the children, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels).
  Ms. Clare Short: I hope that the Secretary of State will refer to the ILO convention. I should be interested to hear what his legal advice is on whether the Bill breaches the convention, and if so, the position in which the Government have put themselves. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist), I was on the Committee on the Wages Bill. The Government had to resile from a convention before they could introduce that Bill. Why is that not so in this case?
  Mr. Baker: I do not accept that we shall be breaking the ILO convention. It provides that representatives of

  437
  public employees shall participate in the determination of terms and conditions of employment. That does not have to be by direct negotiation. The teachers' unions will continue to participate, and I shall come to that. They will submit evidence and representations to the advisory committee, and I shall consult them before making any order.
  I should like to give the history of Burnham and its collapse. It is a sorry chapter. This episode started in 1981 when there was an agreement in Burnham to set out on the road—it was hoped to be a shorter road than it has turned out to be—to reform the salary structure. There was little progress until 1984, when my predecessor said that if there was an affordable, acceptable and negotiable package, he would take it to the Cabinet. In November 1984, the employers outlined a package linking pay and duties. That was progress, and I recognise that, in that pay and conditions were being debated and discussed for the first time, because under the 1965 Act there were two separate negotiating discussion groups.
  In the next month, December 1984, the NUT walked out of the talks. After the local election, results in the spring of 1985, when control of the employers' side passed to Labour, and Labour tore up the concordat—
  Mr. Radice: Backed by the Tories.
  Mr. Baker: The tearing up of that concordat changed the balance fundamentally. I have a copy of the concordat, which runs to only one page. It operated for the better part of 20 years and ensured that the Secretary of State had not only a number of votes in the negotiations but an effective veto over the amount of money that was available. That was torn up.
  Following that, in August last year my predecessor announced that he would make £1·25 billion available over four years. There nearly was a deal on that basis. In September 1985 the employers put forward an offer consistent with that, but the teachers turned it down in 20 minutes. In January this year, in order to try to resolve the problem, some of the parties agreed to call in ACAS, and then the ACAS negotiations started. Alas, that was not accompanied by the end of all trouble and disruption in our schools. There has been intermittent trouble all through this year and it has continued in some of our towns and cities. I regret that.
  Mr. Radice: The right hon. Gentleman is making a good case for reforming Burnham, with which we agree. However, neither on Second Reading nor at any stage of the debate has he made the case for abolishing collective bargaining, as is done in the Bill. Is the right hon. Gentleman in favour of collective bargaining? Does he think that it should be restored after 1990?
  Mr. Baker: I have said that I am in favour of collective bargaining, provided that all the parties are involved in it and, in a matter of such importance to the general economy, the Government of the day have some sort of control over the total amount involved. I am not asking for anything that has not been asked for by my Labour predecessors. I have quoted in the House before the words of Lord Stewart in the debates that set up Burnham:
  "I doubt whether any Government in any set of circumstances could put itself in a position where it could
  438
  hand over the power on the global sum to someone other than itself."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B;1 December 1964, c. 20.]
  The whole idea of the Burnham committee was that, after the global sum had been determined by Government, the various negotiations would deal with the details. The hon. Gentleman has argued for a joint negotiating council, but that would be, in effect, a continuation of the Burnham procedure.
  Mr. Radice: No, it would not be.
  Mr. Baker: Paragraph 7.1 of the ACAS agreement refers to setting up a joint negotiating council and paragraph 7.4 states that the parties would like to discuss the Secretary of State's role with him. As I have made clear, the Secretary of State's role is central to the resolution of these matters. It seems as though my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) made his speech yesterday, it was such a long time ago, but as he said, there was precious little bargaining in the Burnham committees, because until this year the NUT outnumbered all the other unions. In effect, it represented the teachers. That cannot be right. It dominated the other unions, and that does not strike me as being very free or collective.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Mr. Moynihan) pointed out that some of the unions and some of the employers wish to impose their proposals on me. We do not believe that any continuation of the existing system, with joint negotiations with employers and the unions, and using the procedures of the past five to 20 years, could be an effective replacement. Consequently, we recommend an interim advisory committee. I should stress the interim nature of our proposals. We believe that such a committee would provide a better and fairer chance of a solution.
  Several hon. Members have asked how the unions would be involved. Both they and the local education authorities would have the clear right to make representations to the committee. Obviously, they would exercise that right. They may do it conjointly, having first negotiated a joint position. After the interim advisory committee has made its recommendations, I am empowered, and indeed obliged, by the Bill to consult the unions and local education authorities. After that, the House will be asked to support or reject the proposals that I put forward in the form of a statutory instrument. I believe that there are checks and balances in that.
  As several hon. Members have said, the unions are also strong. They will be able to organise and they will not be pushed over by this process. They will still be able to advice their members to accept, or to take such action as they think necessary. Consequently, I strongly commend the major proposals contained in the Bill. I believe that they are a vast improvement on what is available now, and that the House should be prepared to accept them as a way forward towards resolving a dispute and negotiating procedure that has failed for more than five years to produce a resolution.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I am sure that it will be for the convenience of the House if we conclude the debate by 10 pm.
  The central point is that the Secretary of State has not said whether he believes in collective bargaining. He has ducked that question. The answer must be that he does not believe in it, because if he believed in it, he could have used

  439
  the time on Monday when the Bill had its Second Reading, and could have used the time today, and probably tomorrow, to meet the unions and the local authority representatives. In that time, any Secretary of State worth his salt could have produced a negotiated settlement, especially as the parties are now so close together. The right hon. Gentleman has therefore made it clear that he does not believe in collective bargaining and is determined to remove that right.
  Consequently, I invite my right hon. and hon. Friends to join me in the Lobby to vote in favour of amendment No. 2. At a later stage, I hope that we shall also be able to vote on new clause 8.
  Mr. Harry Cohen rose—
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The Committee proceeded to a Division—
  Mr. Cohen: On a point of order, Sir Paul.
  The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. I will take a point of order at this stage only if it is to do with the conduct of the Division.
  Mr. Cohen: As you are aware, Sir Paul, I was on my feet about to speak in the debate. We are in Committee, so all hon. Members can speak more than once. I have not spoken at all, despite the fact that the two Front Bench spokemen have wound up.
  The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. I have heard the hon. Gentleman's point. I saw no hon. Member rise when the Secretary of State sat down, so I put the Question.
  Mr. Cohen: Further to that point of order, Sir Paul. I rose after the Secretary of State, as there was a point to which I wished to reply, and I rose after my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) had sat down. In those circumstances, I should be given an opportunity to speak and there should not be a Division without a closure motion.
  The Committee having divided: Ayes 173, Noes 228.

  Division no.25]

  [10.00 pm

  AYES

  Abse, Leo

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)

  Alton, David

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Anderson, Donald

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Clarke, Thomas

  Ashdown, Paddy

  Clay, Robert

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Clelland, David Gordon

  Ashton, Joe

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

  Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Cohen, Harry

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Coleman, Donald

  Barnett, Guy

  Conlan, Bernard

  Barron, Kevin

  Cook, Frank (Stockton North)

  Beckett, Mrs Margaret

  Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)

  Beith, A. J.

  Corbett, Robin

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

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

  Craigen, J. M.

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Crowther, Stan

  Blair, Anthony

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Boothroyd, Miss Betty

  Dalyell, Tam

  Boyes, Roland

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

  Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)

  Dewar, Donald

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Dormand, Jack

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

  Dubs, Alfred

  Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

  Buchan, Norman

  Eadie, Alex

  Caborn, Richard

  Eastham, Ken

  Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

  Edwards, Bob (W'h'mpt'n SE)

  440

  Fatchett, Derek

  Mikardo, Ian

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)

  Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

  Fisher, Mark

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Flannery, Martin

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Foster, Derek

  Nellist, David

  Foulkes, George

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

  O'Brien, William

  Freud, Clement

  O'Neill, Martin

  Garrett, W. E.

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Godman, Dr Norman

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Park, George

  Gould, Bryan

  Parry, Robert

  Gourlay, Harry

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Hamilton, W. W. (Fife Central)

  Pendry, Tom

  Hardy, Peter

  Penhaligon, David

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Powell, Rt Hon J. E.

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Prescott, John

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Radice, Giles

  Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)

  Raynsford, Nick

  Home Robertson, John

  Redmond, Martin

  Howarth, George (Knowsley, N)

  Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  Richardson, Ms Jo

  Howells, Geraint

  Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

  Hoyle, Douglas

  Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Rogers, Allan

  Hughes, Roy (Newport East)

  Rooker, J. W.

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)

  Janner, Hon Greville

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Shields, Mrs Elizabeth

  Kennedy, Charles

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

  Lambie, David

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

  Lamond, James

  Skinner, Dennis

  Leadbitter, Ted

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

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Soley, Clive

  Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Livsey, Richard

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Strang, Gavin

  McCartney, Hugh

  Straw, Jack

  McGuire, Michael

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  McKay, Allen (Penistone)

  Thorne, Stan (Preston)

  McKelvey, William

  Tinn, James

  MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

  Torney, Tom

  Maclennan, Robert

  Wallace, James

  McNamara, Kevin

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  McTaggart, Robert

  Wareing, Robert

  Madden, Max

  Welsh, Michael

  Marek, Dr John

  Williams, Rt Hon A.

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Martin, Michael

  Maxton, John

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Mr. Don Dixon and

  Meadowcroft, Michael

  Mr. James Hamilton.

  Michie, William

  NOES

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Blackburn, John

  Alexander, Richard

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Amess, David

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Ancram, Michael

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Arnold, Tom

  Bottomley, Peter

  Ashby, David

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)

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

  Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

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

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Baldry, Tony

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Bright, Graham

  Batiste, Spencer

  Brinton, Tim

  Bellingham, Henry

  Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

  Bendall, Vivian

  Browne, John

  Benyon, William

  Bruinvels, Peter

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.

  Biggs-Davison, Sir John

  Bulmer, Esmond

  441

  Burt, Alistair

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Butcher, John

  Howard, Michael

  Butler, Rt Hon Sir Adam

  Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

  Butterfill, John

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Hubbard-Miles, Peter

  Cash, William

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Chope, Christopher

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Jackson, Robert

  Cockeram, Eric

  Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

  Colvin, Michael

  Jessel, Toby

  Conway, Derek

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Coombs, Simon

  Jones, Robert (Herts W)

  Cope, John

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

  Cormack, Patrick

  King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

  Corrie, John

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Couchman, James

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Critchley, Julian

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Crouch, David

  Knowles, Michael

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Knox, David

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Lang, Ian

  Dicks, Terry

  Latham, Michael

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Lawler, Geoffrey

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Dover, Den

  Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)

  Dunn, Robert

  Lightbown, David

  Durant, Tony

  Lilley, Peter

  Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Evennett, David

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Eyre, Sir Reginald

  Lord, Michael

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Lyell, Nicholas

  Favell, Anthony

  McCrindle, Robert

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  McCurley, Mrs Anna

  Fletcher, Alexander

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Maclean, David John

  Forman, Nigel

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

  Forth, Eric

  McQuarrie, Albert

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Madel, David

  Freeman, Roger

  Major, John

  Fry, Peter

  Malins, Humfrey

  Gale, Roger

  Maples, John

  Galley, Roy

  Marlow, Antony

  Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)

  Mather, Carol

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Mellor, David

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Merchant, Piers

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Gow, Ian

  Miller, Hal (B'grove)

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Mills, Iain (Meriden)

  Grant, Sir Anthony

  Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

  Greenway, Harry

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Gregory, Conal

  Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Grist, Ian

  Morris, M. (N'hampton S)

  Ground, Patrick

  Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

  Gummer, Rt Hon John S

  Moynihan, Hon C.

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Mudd, David

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Neale, Gerrard

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Neubert, Michael

  Hannam, John

  Newton, Tony

  Hargreaves, Kenneth

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Harris, David

  Norris, Steven

  Harvey, Robert

  Onslow, Cranley

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

  Hawkins, C. (High Peak)

  Osborn, Sir John

  Hawkins, Sir Paul (N'folk SW)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Hayes, J.

  Page, Sir John (Harrow W)

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Barney

  Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

  Heddle, John

  Patten, Christopher (Bath)

  Henderson, Barry

  Pattie, Geoffrey

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Pawsey, James

  Hickmet, Richard

  Pollock, Alexander

  Hicks, Robert

  Porter, Barry

  Hill, James

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Hind, Kenneth

  Powley, John

  Hirst, Michael

  Price, Sir David

  Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

  Proctor, K. Harvey

  Holt, Richard

  Raffan, Keith

  442

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Thurnham, Peter

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  van Straubenzee, Sir W.

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Rowe, Andrew

  Watson, John

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  Whitfield, John

  Silvester, Fred

  Wilkinson, John

  Spencer, Derek

  Wood, Timothy

  Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Mr. Gerald Malone and

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.

  Mr. Michael Portillo.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  10.13 pm
  Mr. Bob Clay rose—
  Mr. Nellist rose—
  It being after Ten o 'clock The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report progress and ask leave to sit again.
  Committee reported progress.
  It being after Ten o'clock, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded to put forthwith the Questions which he was directed to put, pursuant to paragraphs (1) and (2) of Standing Order No. 53 (Questions on voting of estimates, &c.).

  SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES 1986–87
  Resolved,
  That a supplementary sum, not exceeding £2,206,135,000, be granted to Her Majesty to defray charges for Defence and Civil Services which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1987, as set out in House of Commons Papers Nos. 8 and 43.

  ESTIMATES 1987–88 (VOTE ON ACCOUNT)
  Resolved,
  That a sum, not exceeding £44,907,033,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund, on account, for or towards defraying the charges for Defence and Civil Services for the year ending on 31st March 1988, as set out in House of Commons Papers Nos. 2, 5, 7 and 54.
  Bill ordered to be brought in upon the foregoing Resolutions by the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. John MacGregor, Mr. Norman Lamont, Mr. Ian Stewart and Mr. Peter Brooke.

  CONSOLIDATED FUND BILL
  Mr. Norman Lamont accordingly presented a Bill to apply certain sums out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the years ending on 31 March 1987 and 1988: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 14.]

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Motion made, and Question put,
  That, at this day's sitting, the Teachers' Pay and Conditions Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Sainsbury.]
  The House divided: Ayes 219, Noes 167.

  Division No. 26]

  [10.17 pm

  AYES

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Amess, David

  Alexander, Richard

  Ancram, Michael

  443

  Arnold, Tom

  Gow, Ian

  Ashby, David

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)

  Grant, Sir Anthony

  Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

  Greenway, Harry

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

  Gregory, Conal

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

  Baldry, Tony

  Ground, Patrick

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Grylls, Michael

  Batiste, Spencer

  Gummer, Rt Hon John S

  Bellingham, Henry

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Bendall, Vivian

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Benyon, William

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Hannam, John

  Biggs-Davison, Sir John

  Hargreaves, Kenneth

  Blackburn, John

  Harris, David

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Harvey, Robert

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Hawkins, Sir Paul (N'folk SW)

  Bottomley, Peter

  Hayes, J.

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Barney

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

  Henderson, Barry

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes

  Hickmet, Richard

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Hicks, Robert

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Hill, James

  Bright, Graham

  Hind, Kenneth

  Brinton, Tim

  Hirst, Michael

  Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

  Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

  Browne, John

  Holt, Richard

  Bruinvels, Peter

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.

  Howard, Michael

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)

  Burt, Alistair

  Hubbard-Miles, Peter

  Butcher, John

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Butler, Rt Hon Sir Adam

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Butterfill, John

  Hunter, Andrew

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Jackson, Robert

  Cash, William

  Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

  Chope, Christopher

  Jessel, Toby

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

  Cockeram, Eric

  King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

  Colvin, Michael

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Conway, Derek

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Coombs, Simon

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Cope, John

  Knowles, Michael

  Cormack, Patrick

  Knox, David

  Corrie, John

  Lang, Ian

  Couchman, James

  Latham, Michael

  Crouch, David

  Lawler, Geoffrey

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Dicks, Terry

  Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Dover, Den

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Dunn, Robert

  Lord, Michael

  Durant, Tony

  Lyell, Nicholas

  Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

  McCrindle, Robert

  Evennett, David

  McCurley, Mrs Anna

  Eyre, Sir Reginald

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Maclean, David John

  Favell, Anthony

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

  Fletcher, Alexander

  McQuarrie, Albert

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Madel, David

  Forman, Nigel

  Major, John

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Malins, Humfrey

  Forth, Eric

  Malone, Gerald

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Maples, John

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Marlow, Antony

  Freeman, Roger

  Mather, Carol

  Fry, Peter

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Gale, Roger

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Galley, Roy

  Mayhew, Sir Patrick

  Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)

  Mellor, David

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Merchant, Piers

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Miller, Hal (B'grove)

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Mills, Iain (Meriden)

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

  444

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Rathbone, Tim

  Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Morris, M. (N'hampton S)

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Moynihan, Hon C.

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Mudd, David

  Rowe, Andrew

  Neale, Gerrard

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Neubert, Michael

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  Newton, Tony

  Silvester, Fred

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Spencer, Derek

  Norris, Steven

  Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

  Onslow, Cranley

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.

  Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

  Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

  Osborn, Sir John

  Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Page, Sir John (Harrow W)

  Thurnham, Peter

  Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Patten, Christopher (Bath)

  van Straubenzee, Sir W.

  Pattie, Geoffrey

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Pawsey, James

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Pollock, Alexander

  Watson, John

  Porter, Barry

  Whitfield, John

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Powley, John

  Price, Sir David

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Proctor, K. Harvey

  Mr. David Lightbown and

  Raffan, Keith

  Mr. Michael Portillo.

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

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

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Dewar, Donald

  Alton, David

  Dormand, Jack

  Anderson, Donald

  Dubs, Alfred

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Ashdown, Paddy

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Eadie, Alex

  Ashton, Joe

  Eastham, Ken

  Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

  Edwards, Bob (W'h'mpt'n SE)

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Fatchett, Derek

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Barnett, Guy

  Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)

  Barron, Kevin

  Fisher, Mark

  Beckett, Mrs Margaret

  Flannery, Martin

  Beith, A. J.

  Foster, Derek

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Foulkes, George

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

  Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Freud, Clement

  Blair, Anthony

  Godman, Dr Norman

  Boothroyd, Miss Betty

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Boyes, Roland

  Gould, Bryan

  Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)

  Gourlay, Harry

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Hamilton, W. W. (Fife Central)

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

  Hancock, Michael

  Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

  Hardy, Peter

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Buchan, Norman

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Caborn, Richard

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)

  Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)

  Home Robertson, John

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Howarth, George (Knowsley, N)

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  Clarke, Thomas

  Howells, Geraint

  Clay, Robert

  Hoyle, Douglas

  Clelland, David Gordon

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Hughes, Roy (Newport East)

  Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Cohen, Harry

  Janner, Hon Greville

  Coleman, Donald

  Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)

  Conlan, Bernard

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Cook, Frank (Stockton North)

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Corbett, Robin

  Kennedy, Charles

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Craigen, J. M.

  Lambie, David

  Crowther, Stan

  Lamond, James

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Leadbitter, Ted

  445

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Radice, Giles

  Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

  Raynsford, Nick

  Livsey, Richard

  Redmond, Martin

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Richardson, Ms Jo

  McCartney, Hugh

  Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

  McGuire, Michael

  Rogers, Allan

  McKay, Allen (Penistone)

  Rooker, J. W.

  McKelvey, William

  Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)

  MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Maclennan, Robert

  Rowlands, Ted

  McTaggart, Robert

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Madden, Max

  Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

  Marek, Dr John

  Shields, Mrs Elizabeth

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Martin, Michael

  Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

  Maxton, John

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

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Skinner, Dennis

  Meadowcroft, Michael

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

  Michie, William

  Soley, Clive

  Mikardo, Ian

  Spearing, Nigel

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

  Strang, Gavin

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Straw, Jack

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Thorne, Stan (Preston)

  Nellist, David

  Tinn, James

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Torney, Tom

  O'Brien, William

  Wallace, James

  O'Neill, Martin

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Wareing, Robert

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Welsh, Michael

  Park, George

  Williams, Rt Hon A.

  Parry, Robert

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Pendry, Tom

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Penhaligon, David

  Mr. James Hamilton and

  Powell, Rt Hon J. E.

  Mr. Don Dixon.

  Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Mr. Peter Hardy: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I saw on the Tapes downstairs the announcement that the Government propose immediately to suspend further consideration of the Bill. I do not know whether that report is accurate. It seemed to delight a rather large number of Conservative Members. If this is an official pronouncement from the Department of Education and Science, it must be a profound discourtesy to the House for it to hear of it in that surprising way. The Secretary of State should immediately make an explanation to the House about his further intentions.
  Mr. Kenneth Baker: The hon. Gentleman should not believe everything that he reads. I have no intention of suspending consideration of the Bill. We have just started. We have just dealt with the first set of amendments. The debate is just beginning, it is just warming up, and we should proceed.
  Mr. Clay: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I shall not take any further points of order for the simple reason that the House has just passed the 10 o'clock motion, so we should now get on with our business.

  Teachers' Pay and Conditions Bill
  Again considered in Committee
  Mr. Nellist: On a point of order, Sir Paul. I wish to raise a point that I mentioned during the Division about half an hour ago. As I understand it, we have just voted on amendment No. 2, which was essentially a paving
  446
  amendment for amendments Nos. 8 to 14, any one of which could have been introduced if amendment No. 2 had been passed. As the Committee has not accepted that amendment, I assume that we cannot vote on amendments Nos. 8 to 14.
  Amendments Nos. 17 to 20 propose a substantially different approach from that of making an order. Would it therefore be possible, provided that his remarks are germane to amendments Nos. 17 to 20, for my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) to make a contribution to the debate? [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] I am not asking hon. Members; I am asking you, Sir Paul. My hon. Friend was unable to catch your eye when the Division was called.
  May I request that the Committee be given an opportunity to vote on amendments Nos. 17 and 18? If that is possible, how shall I do that? There is a difference between the machinery for negotiation mentioned in amendment No. 17 and the retrospective nature of amendment No. 18, neither of which has been properly covered in the options that have fallen because we did not pass amendment No. 2.
  The Second Deputy Chairman: I assure the Committee that the Chairman of Ways and Means considered these matters very carefully before the proceedings began. The occupants of the chair, of course, have been following the debate carefully. The ruling is that I am not prepared to allow another Division on the group of amendments that we have discussed. The Chairman of Ways and Means will consider the request by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) as to the possibility of a Division on one or other of the new clauses which have been discussed with that group of amendments. That is made with no commitment. That matter will be considered and, if it is decided that a Division can be held on one or other of the new clauses, it will, of course, take place at the appropriate time, according to the Amendment Paper.
  Mr. Clay: On a point of order, Sir Paul. Before the Division on amendment No. 2, my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) was on his feet. I was sitting less than a yard from him. I accept that it is not always possible for the occupant of the Chair to notice those hon. Members who are standing, especially down this end of the Chamber. As I understand it, in Committee proceedings if an hon. Member is standing and he or she catches the eye of the occupant of the Chair, the only way in which he or she can be stopped from speaking is by a closure motion. That motion was not moved before the Division on amendment No. 2. I ask, in case this happens again to any hon. Members including my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton, who are standing and wishing to speak—after all, my hon. Friend had not spoken in the debate until then, but he was clearly standing and hoping to catch the Chairman's eye—that you will cast your eye in various directions, especially this one, as the night continues, so that hon. Members are not again denied the opportunity to speak on matters that they think are important.
  The Second Deputy Chairman: I think that it will be clear to the Committee that there is a wide range of amendments still to be considered. I shall be very disappointed if any hon. Member on either side of the Chamber does not have an opportunity to catch the Chairman's eye at some time during the coming hours.
  Mr. Radice: I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 1, line 5, at end insert
  'and is replaced by a negotiating machinery as set out in the document agreed under the auspices of the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service between representatives of the local education authorities and of the teachers' unions.'.
  The Second Deputy Chairman: With this it will be convenient to consider the following: Amendment No. 5, in page 1, line 5, at end insert
  'and school teachers' pay shall be determined by the agreement reached at the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service between the local education authorities and the teachers' unions'.
  New clause 1—Pension arrangements—
  'The Secretary of State shall ensure that, for the determination of pension arrangements, the agreement on pay reached under the auspices of the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service on 21st November 1986 shall be deemed to have effect from 1st January 1987.'.
  Mr. Radice: This group of amendments centres on the role of ACAS and the agreement negotiated under ACAS auspices between employers and unions representing well over half the teachers. Before any Conservative Member says that this does not have the support of many teachers, I remind them that the NUT and the AMMA between them include well over half the teachers. Hon. Members will have seen the preliminary results of the AMMA ballot, which show that the majority of AMMA members favour the agreement. I suspect that the same is true of the NUT. The claim which is continually made in trying to undermine the agreement—that it does not have the support of the majority of teachers—will be seen to be unfounded.
  I remind hon. Members that the immediate background against which the Bill is being introduced is more promising than it has been for a number of years. As I said on Second Reading, the public are paying much more attention to education, and this in part, is related to parents' anxiety to have a long-term settlement of the issue. We must all work towards that end.
  I recognise that the Government have at last switched policy. We have said several times that it is a pity that it did not happen before. If money on the scale that is now being offered had been offered two years ago, there would not have been a teachers' dispute. However, we recognise that the Government have shown a new willingness to fund a reasonable settlement, and that creates the possibility of settling the issue.
  The third encouraging feature is that the local authority employers and unions representing the majority of teachers have agreed to this far-reaching package, covering pay and conditions. Even the Secretary of State, albeit reluctantly, has had to admit that the talks have made useful progress.
  Most hon. Members would agree that a lasting solution to the problem of teachers' pay and conditions must tackle four issues. The first is that teachers' pay has fallen behind that of comparable groups of professionals. That is the relative criterion by which we should judge teachers' pay. No one would challenge that statement.
  Secondly, the existing pay structure which links promotion opportunities to pupil numbers at a time of falling rolls has locked the great bulk of teachers on to the bottom two pay scales. We must do something about that. Thirdly, there is a need for a clearer definition of teachers'
  448
  professional duties and for improvements in the conditions of service. Again, there is not much quarrel about that. Fourthly, we need an overhaul of the present arrangements for dealing with the determination of teachers' pay and conditions. Again, there will be no quarrel about that.
  I argue that the deal reached by the local authorities and the unions representing the majority of teachers tackles all those issues. It will ensure that all teachers receive a significant salary increase, especially the low-paid workers, and, by replacing the present system of pay scales by a single main professional grade, it offers every teacher the prospect of a steady improvement in earnings as their careers progress. The new main professional grade offers all teachers the prospect of their salaries rising through 13 increments from £9,970 to £15,058. That is a professional career structure, leading to professional salaries.
  By contrast—this point has not been made sufficiently strongly—the Government's proposals will put a ceiling of £12,700 on the earnings of an unpromoted teacher. The problem is that many teachers will reach that ceiling after only a few years' service. The pay structure favoured by the Government does not offer enough teachers a decent salary scale, whereas the new salary level and structure will ensure that teaching recruits and retains people of the highest ability and motivation.
  I know—no doubt we shall argue about this—that the Government believe that there should be more promoted posts and additional increments. I hope that the Minister of State will comment on the fact that the NUT has said repeatedly that there is a case for an allowance additional to the first two allowances. I understand that the Government favour five additional allowances, so we are beginning to enter an area where compromise is at least possible. The Government have not recognised that sufficiently, and when we are away from the hurly-burly of the hustings later tonight—when serious professionals get down to discussing the details—I hope that we can agree that the gap between the two sides is not too large.
  The agreement incorporates a list of 13 duties, setting out teachers' professional obligations, including participation in schemes of appraisal and consulting parents. I do not want to read out the contractual duties of teachers, although no doubt some of my hon. Friends will want to do so as the evening wears on. I have a list here which I can lend them when the time comes. But that is relevant, because the Government have said that those duties should be in a teacher's contract. They are already in the ACAS agreement and we have not had sufficient recognition of that from the Government.
  10.45 pm
  The last point that needs to be recognised is that the Nottingham/London agreement acknowledges the need for a radical overhaul of the Burnham committee. Again, the Government have not sufficiently accepted the progress that has been made. The agreement recognises that pay and conditions of service need to be dealt with together and that the Government should be involved in collective bargaining. In the previous debate the Secretary of State made much of the fact that the ACAS agreement had merely spelt out in principle the role of the Secretary of State and said that his role should be discussed with him. He pooh-poohed that, when instead he should build on it in order to obtain a satisfactory solution, so that the fact that the Government pay at least 46 per cent. of the

  449
  total teachers' salary bill can be recognised in the negotiating structures. That is something on which both sides of the House agree.
  If we can get that, the Government should be seizing on it. They should accept that there is a great movement forward here. If we can get an agreement covering all those aspects, there is no need for the Government to move in the way that they have on the Bill.
  This is basically a good agreement between the employers and the unions representing the majority of teachers which should be recognised as such by the Secretary of State. The differences between the Government's position and that reached at Nottingham and London are not all that great. I have heard a lot about the cost, but I repeat that that is no unbridgeable divide. Everybody is well aware that a month's delay in implementation saves at least £40 million. That is a pretty big move towards the £80 million we are talking about.
  As I said on Second Reading, if the Secretary of State wants an agreed package, there is one there for the asking. It really is up to the Government to make up their mind. Do they want an agreed settlement, with all the benefits that that is likely to bring in acceptability and in creating peace in the classroom, or will they risk the gamble of imposing a solution which could well be unpopular and could lead to renewed disruption—although I hope that it does not? The Secretary of State will have the added problem that he will be blamed directly for what happens. If he steps in in this deus ex machina role he will be blamed if things go wrong.
  In the circumstances, the sensible position for a Government, particularly in the run-up to an election, is to work hard and get an agreement, which I believe can be obtained, between the employers, the Government and the teachers, based on the London/Nottingham agreement and taking into account the points that the Secretary of State has made.
  The purpose of our amendments is to remind the Secretary of State just how great is the progress that has been made, how small the differences are and how sensible it would be to grasp the ACAS agreement and for the Government to make it their own.
  Mr. Greenway: The position adopted by the hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) is both encouraging and discouraging. He knows that I am of the opinion that, if humanly possible, a compromise should be reached. He also knows that I believe that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State makes a compelling point when he says that there must be a sufficient number of differentials to cover those who have heavy, medium and little responsibility.
  Mr. Radice: I know that the hon. Gentleman believes in a compromise solution and he has made that clear in the House. I respect him for what he has said. We listen with great respect to what he says about educational matters. However, how many additional posts does he think are required?
  Mr. Greenway: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's solution, in terms of the number of posts required, is very much nearer to what is required than the ACAS agreement. There should be four or five differentials. To have fewer would lead to the position that I knew when
  450
  I began to teach 30 years ago, and it is not a position to which we should return. In that school 30 years ago there were about 30 staff, only one of whom, besides the head and the deputy head, was paid for additional responsibilities. It did not allow that school to be run adequately and efficiently. In schools of that size today there are 12 or 14 posts of responsibility. That is near to what is envisaged by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and it would be in the interests of the teaching profession. We must make it possible for people to gain promotion.
  I remember the very first strike of teachers at the William Penn school. They were members of the National Association of Schoolmasters. They went on strike to gain a place on the Burnham committee. The next strike involved NAS members throughout London. The attitude of teachers to strikes has changed completely within the space of only a few years.
  The hon. Member for Durham, North said that he thought I was right when I said that a compromise ought to be the aim, but he has moved an amendment that asks the Committee to accept the ACAS deal. Such inconsistency is unacceptable. The 13 conditions in the ACAS agreement cover much valuable ground. I appreciate that the unions have made progress on devising a respectable contract for teachers. But somebody needs to speak up for those who have to run the schools. Not to have a clause that requires teachers to carry out the reasonable duties that a head teacher requires them to carry out is a very serious ommission. I do not support dictatorial heads, but they must be able to say to their teachers that something has to be done and that they must do it. It is a serious omission, and for that reason alone I could not vote for the ACAS agreement.
  Mr. Radice: The preamble to the 13 duties reads:
  "Under the reasonable direction of the head teacher."
  I should have thought that that was very clear.
  Mr. Greenway: I am not satisfied about it; it needs to be tightened up. I have studied the matter and discussed it with those who are responsible for running our schools.
  Under the agreement in the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Durham, North, teachers with small responsibilities will get a whacking increase. Other teachers with heavy responsibilities who are bearing the heat and burden of the day in a way that only those with top responsibilities in schools can will get little. That does not seem to be equitable. A great deal more talking needs to be done to produce a compromise that is fair and in the interests of all sections of the profession.
  Mr. Dormand: It has to be said at the outset, that while there are some differences of opinion among teacher unions about the negotiated agreement, there are no divisions whatsoever on negotiating machinery. I respect very much the experience of the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) in teaching and the responsibility that he had, but I am surprised that he made no reference to that at all. I hoped that he and other Conservative Members would realise that that is the crucial thing with regard to ACAS, but there are other matters to which I shall refer.
  The unions have already agreed to replace the Burnham committee with a national joint council for dealing with pay and conditions of service for teachers and, in so doing, acknowledged the need for a role for the Secretary of State in the new negotiating machinery. That is important, On

  451
  Second Reading on Monday, I was astonished at the Ignorance—I think that that is the correct word—shown by Conservative Members in some of their speeches—
  Mr. Radice: About what was in the Bill.
  Mr. Dormand: Indeed. That is absolutely right. But I am referring in particular to the Burnham committee. At least two Conservative Members assumed that the committee was still supported by ACAS, the unions and everybody else. That was not so. It was astonishing, in a Second Reading debate on an issue of such importance, to come across such a lack of knowledge.
  Mr. Frank Cook: They believe what they want to believe.
  Mr. Dormand: That is absolutely right. Nobody is showing more evidence of that than the Secretary of State. He is overriding the normal democratic processes. Some of us had considerable respect for the Secretary of State. I think that I am right in saying that this is his second term in the House of Commons. In 1973 I heard what I considered to be a good speech by the right hon. Gentleman. I said how good I thought it was but that he had better be careful because he might get the reputation of being a smoothie. I am not the only one who refers to the Secretary of State nowadays as a smoothie. It appears that that is the reputation that he is getting. But a "smoothie" seems to suggest something fairly superficial. My hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) has made a more devastating criticism of the Secretary of State, with which I agree. It was widely reported in the press after his speech on Monday.
  The unions and Labour Members accept that there is a role for the Secretary of State in the negotiating process. I say that because the impression is given constantly that that is not so. I am at a loss to understand that. I do not see that any mileage or kudos are to be gained by that. Labour Members and ACAS—apparently everbody but the Government recognise that there is a role. Indeed, it is an important role.
  Mr. Radice: There has to be.
  Mr. Dormand: That is right. The reason is, as the Secretary of State has said properly on several occasions, that he represents the taxpayer. That is right. There is nothing wrong with that. However, I have to say that that is a role that has been played by the Secretary of State under Burnham for all the years that that system has been in operation. Why should there be criticism, or inferred ciriticism, from Conservative Members on that point. What is to be gained by trying to give that impression?
  11pm
  The principle that any new machinery for teachers' pay and conditions of service should include direct negotiations—I repeat, direct negotiations—is absolutely fundamental. Unless the Government or even the Opposition, recognise that, they are doing the education service a grave injustice. The advisory committee is a direct and total denial of that principle. I have done some research in the Library on this and I know of no other country, at least in the western world, where such complete denial is part of the process of determining such matters. After all, there are few things more important than the pay and conditions of any category of society, including the vital service of education.
  452
  The agreement provides for a national joint council to deal with pay and other conditions of service for teachers and in doing so it acknowledges the need for discussions with the Secretary of State on his role in the new negotiating machinery. Having said that, I fail to see how anybody, except perhaps one or two Conservative Members can fail to be disillusioned by the provision for consultation in the Bill. It is no more than a farce. It has been said on a number of occasions that it is a facade. If that is not recognised then, frankly, the Government and Conservative Members are not doing education a service.
  The Secretary of State and Conservative Members frequently refer to the division among teachers' unions. On the question of negotiating machinery, the Secretary of State has had a clear and unequivocal joint letter from the NUT, the NAS/UWT, AMMA and the Secondary Heads Association. I believe that some hon. Members have received a copy of that letter. I shall quote from the letter because I think that it is important. It states:
  "We are united in our opposition to your Bill which removes from teacher organisations the right to direct negotiations. We urge you to reconsider your position and to accept the principle that any new negotiating machinery for teachers' pay and conditions should include direct negotiation."
  I hope that I am not wearying the Committee by the use of the words "direct negotiation", because, after all, that is the nub of the problem. As I and some of my hon. Friends have said, we know of no other country where that is denied. It is a brushing away of the democratic process in 1986. The quotation sums up in the clearest terms what the amendments are about. They have the support of the vast majority of teachers.
  I have referred to the unions, but, of course, there is the same kind of support from the employers' organisations. All hon. Members have had letters from the Association of Metropolitan Authorities and the Association of County Councils. I was particularly interested to read the views of the Association of County Councils. It said that it has argued for many years for the repeal of the Remuneration of Teachers Act 1965 which, it feels, has inhibited proper negotiations concerning teachers' salaries, and effectively blocked the sensible possibility of negotiating pay together with other conditions of service for more than 20 years. I do not agree with that view. I think that the association has gone over the top. There is some substance in it but that is not the issue. We are talking about the consensus between everybody concerned, and the Government are simply not recognising that. There is a wave of protest and the Government still fail to recognise and deal with it.
  I repeat what I said on a previous occasion. I am deeply concerned that the Government have not recognised how far the unions have moved in agreeing to include conditions of service in the negotiations. It is yet another example of the Government being out of touch with the realities of the world of education and of teachers in particular. They had better be aware of the resentment that that is causing among teachers and employers. The Association of County Councils states:
  "The majority of teachers' representatives had generally, and until recently, opposed any changes which would have allowed effective negotiations. They have now, under the aegis of the ACAS talks, agreed a new framework for negotiations with the employers which would enable those changes to take place."
  Other hon. Members will be aware of how long the ACC has been trying to bring about those changes. I do not

  453
  want to make you blush, Mr. Armstrong, but you were one of the most distinguished headmasters that our county had and your reputation lives on. Part of that reputation was concerned with what I have just said. I hope that Conservative Members will bear that in mind because it is of fundamental importance.
  It is no wonder that the ACC enthused so much about what it considered to be a fundamental change of heart, but the employers' joy was soon extinguished because the Bill removes from them any decision-making at all. That has been one of our constant criticisms. Under the Bill, the Secretary of State hogs all the decisions on basic pay and conditions. He will decide what is to be discussed and what is to be referred to the advisory body.
  We are not likely to get an answer on this, but my hon. Friends and I would be interested to know how many objections have been and will be made by Tory councellors. [HON. MEMBERS: "The Minister is not listening."] I appreciate that the Minister has important matters to consider—
  Mr. Frank Cook: Her car is coming. She is on her way to Annabel's by the look of it.
  Mr. Dormand: How many objections have there been from Tory councillors? The agreement was clearly reached with the assent of all or most Tory councillors. It will also be interesting to see how many objections there are in the future because this measure will sweep away the powers of Tory councillors as well as those of the Labour persuasion.
  When I collected my late mail between the two Divisions a short while ago I certainly did not expect to find a letter from the employers' chairman of the management panel of the Burnham primary and secondary committee. It is a short letter, but it is the most important that I have received so far on this controversial Bill. It says:
  "As you will know the Government has introduced a Bill to repeal the Remuneration of Teachers Act 1965 and establish, initially on an interim basis to March 1990, an Advisory Committee which will make (non-binding) recommendations to the Secretary of State on teachers' pay and conditions within pre-determined financial constraints.
  I have written to the Secretary of State (as attached) calling upon him to reconsider his position.
  The Government's Bill would, if enacted, have the effect of excluding both the employers and the unions from decision-making on the most expensive element of the education budget."
  I break off the quotation there because that epitomises my argument and that which my right hon. and hon. Friends have made and will continue to make for the rest of the debate. The letter continues:
  "Even leaving aside the unilateral nature of the Bill, the implications of the proposed Advisory Committee clearly stretch beyond issues of teachers' pay and conditions in such a way as fundamentally to call in question the balance between LEAs and the DES."
  I do not think that any Conservative Member can deny that that is absolutely correct. The letter continues:
  "I am convinced that the Government's Bill will, far from achieving its purported objective, make the situation in the schools even worse than it has been. Moreover, it is in itself retrograde and undemocratic and should for that reason alone be rejected.
  I would be very willing to discuss these issues with MPs either singly or collectively."
  454
  The issue must be considered important if he is prepared to discuss the matter singly. I should like to repeat the penultimate sentence which runs:
  "Moreover, it is in itself retrograde and undemocratic and should for that reason alone be rejected."
  That is the nub of the argument. If the employers' chairman from the management panel of the Burnham primary and secondary committee has added his weight to the letters, objections and telephone calls that we have received and still the Government will take no notice, when will they take any notice of any argument? We know, of course, that they are autocratic.
  I could refer to many other documents, but I know that other hon. Friends wish to speak. The amendments are simply a recognition of present circumstances in the world of education. They are a recognition of the fairness which everyone except the Government appreciates is essential if stability and progress are to return to our schools. I repeat what my hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North has said often, and has repeated again today—we are as anxious as anyone that peace and stability should be restored to classrooms.
  The Government could be hardly more wrong than they are to try to impose what they call a solution in the form of the Bill. The amendments recognise the balance and compromise which are essential ingredients in a sensible solution, especially in the present inflamed situation. I give the amendments my wholehearted support.
  Mr. Flannery: Tuesday's Guardian carried the heading:
  "Government determined to close this sorry business—Baker hardens stance on forced teachers' deal"
  The report said:
  "The Education Secretary, Mr. Kenneth Baker, has hardened his stance in the teachers' dispute, telling MPs yesterday they must be in no doubt about the Government's determination to 'close this sorry business.'
  Throughout the Commons second reading debate"—
  many of us were involved in that—
  "on the bill to abolish the Burnham teachers' pay negotiating machinery, Mr. Baker made plain his willingness to use its powers to impose his own solution to the two-year dispute."
  The negotiating process has been built up over many years. Any hon. Member who has taught, as quite a few have, knows how teachers gradually learn about the process of democracy in negotiations, especially between a local education authority and its teachers' organisations, and how that education authority is itself democratically built up, and what there is in the authority. There are elected representatives, usually with long and detailed experience. Not everybody can do the job. It took me years to get on to a local education committee.
  Mr. Greenway indicated assent.
  11.15 pm
  Mr. Flannery: I can see the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway), an ex-teacher like myself, nodding in agreement.
  We all know what it took. The type of person who can go on an education committee does not grow on trees. They are people with long experience, who have devoted themselves to this and have proved themselves. They come from both sides and there is a core of elected people and a little group of co-opted people. Through the years, they get to know one another. A rapport develops — an integration born of democracy and of long years together.

  455
  Side by side with these committees are the teachers' unions. None of us wants the teachers' unions to be disparate and split. We would like them to be unified, just as the authority is unified. In all areas—for example, big cities—there are joint committees of the teachers' unions. On the committee on which I served for many years, head teachers were represented, with their members changing at two-year intervals. Each of the teachers' unions was there, working together, and they formulated their conclusions about what they needed to negotiate on. They went back to their organisations, returned to the joint committee and then on to the local education authority as representatives of the unions. All this was a natural process of democracy being built up with patience year after year.
  To override this because of frustration will not solve the problem of teaching our children, a problem that has come about over this long, weary, tiring, but still democratic, process. It is untidy, but it is the best that we have got, as Churchill said. It is a process whereby people get together, and no matter what difficulties they have, they attempt to come to a consensus or a compromise, and go on with the education of our children.
  Everything that went on in that process came from the hard work of democratic people and through organisations built up patiently over 100 or 150 years by the people who worked in them. That process of patient, built-up democracy is so precious that to destroy it by a hasty move is not in the interests of the people who would take such action. At a later stage, the short cut that they are taking will find them out, just as any diktat, anywhere, made by the the Right, the Left or the centre, will not work, but will promote its opposite.
  Democracy, which is a steady, on-going process, will ultimately prevail. Those who take the short cuts embodied in the Bill are ploughing the ocean. It will swill back over them at some stage, just as it has swilled back over Chirac in France, after the nonsense that he tried to put into the French educational system, having been warned by the President not to do it.
  The Bill is born of frustration. The Government no longer have the patience to go on with the democratic process. They are angry, hurt and upset and no longer willing to go on arguing. The Government created the situation because they did not provide enough money to pay for the educational system that had been patiently built up over the years. They have allowed our schools to get into a mess and they sought and finally found a short, quick way out.
  Our amendment seeks to replace the Burnham committee. We admit, many of us against our will, that the work of that committee has come to nothing, but that is because the Government failed to provide the money to keep it in being. We accept that, democratic as it is, the committee is not acceptable to this powerful Government with their overwhelming voting power in the Chamber and a paucity of arguments. The Government did not know what to do and finally took these draconian measures. It saddens me to find many democrats on the Government side bowing their heads to this draconian process.
  We say in the amendment that the Burnham committee should be
  "replaced by a negotiating machinery as set out in the document agreed under the auspices of the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service"—
  that is ACAS—
  456
  "between representatives of the local education authorities and of the teachers' unions.".
  Together with the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway), I am one of the longest serving members of two Select Committees. We have been to other countries to study their education systems. I see in the Chamber hon. Members who have gone with me to Northern Ireland, and they know that what I am saying is true. We looked at education systems and in our private conversations we proudly agreed that none of them is as good as ours.
  Just over a year ago I was in Germany with members of a Select Committee, and I can say categorically that the system we saw there is not nearly as good as ours—in spite of Germany's advances in trade and industry. Our failure in those fields is due to the failure of the Government's policy of monetarism and because Germany has invested money in its industry. It has nothing to do with the education system.
  In Germany, there are no television sets in primary schools. We were told that there were some in the secondary schools, but when we checked we found none. The schools there are not as well equipped as ours and our schools are more relaxed and better in every way. In France, before a teacher can be moved from one school to another or placed in a school, permission has to be sought from Paris. I think the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Brinton) was with me when we went with members of a Select Committee, and he knows that that is true.
  Mr. Tim Brinton: The hon. Gentleman says that I was a member of a Select Committee in the last Parliament and that I can confirm all that he says. I am afraid I cannot do that, because as a television practitioner I would not worry too much if there were no television sets in schools. There is one difference between us.
  Mr. Flannery: The hon. Gentleman is a friend and we had the occasional drink together after meetings. He says that television in schools is not a good thing. I suspected on occasion that the hon. Gentleman was reactionary when it came to television in schools, and now I know that that is true. Anybody who does not realise that if it is used intelligently television is a great instrument for advancement is detached by a few years from today's reality.
  We wish to insert the following:
  "and school teachers' pay shall be determined by the agreement reached at the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service between the local education authorities and the teachers' unions."
  We are speaking against the background of a democratic process that has taken many years to evolve, a process that was hard-born and difficult, and the Government have failed properly to maintain the education system because they have not made enough money available to pay teachers adequately. They have become frustrated and have sought escape by taking the most draconian route open to them, a route which bypasses the democratic process. They have opted for a system which is unacceptable to those who have to teach in the schools, and without those people we cannot have education.
  Teachers are massively dissatisfied with the Bill, which is unifying them against the Government. The Bill will bring about a struggle, and teachers will be agonising over whether to unleash another struggle. They will be agonising over what they should do. They will be discussing these matters with one another and asking themselves, "Do we engage in another struggle or do we bow our heads?" I have heard some teachers saying in this

  457
  place this evening that if they bow their heads they will get nowhere and if they struggle they will be accused of unleashing further conflict.
  There is a struggle taking place that involves the maintenance of democracy in education and an antidemocratic short cut, and the short cut will be upheld by the Government's voting power in this place, despite their paucity of argument. The amendments are hard thought out. They are in favour of democracy in education and against a process of anti-democratic short cuts and diktat. If the Government's anti-democratic actions unleash a further struggle, be that on their conscience. They must understand that at some stage people will fight back against diktat, and that is the position we are reaching.
  Mr. George Howarth: ACAS is a fine body, and I am sure that at least my right hon. and hon. Friends have had occasion to use it. It is a sensible, even-handed organisation which is respected by industry generally. It often solves complex problems in an imaginative and intelligent way that is acceptable to both sides of industry. I shall try to relate the role that ACAS could play in the teachers' dispute to the many interested groups in the education system. I do not think that there can be disentanglement without consideration being given to all the interested parties.
  I am a parent, and I represent many thousands of parents in the part of the Knowsley which comes within my constituency, an area that has a high school-age population. It is of great concern to me and many other parents that we should get the education system right. We must achieve a lasting partnership between all the forces within the system, that will enable us to build for the future and provide a proper education system for our children. I accept that to some extent the Secretary of State has sought to achieve that in some of the actions that he has taken, but he has not succeeded.
  Local education authorities are part of that which we call education, and we have seen Conservative Members beating them across the head with a big stick over the past few weeks. Conservative Members must understand that local authorities are elected democratically through the ballot box to look after the interests of local people. As such, they have a legitimate interest in the education system, and we cannot dismiss the role played by local authorities or feel that they have nothing to say on the subject, because they do. They are democratically elected and are an important ingredient in the whole equation.
  Many parents are deeply concerned that the education system has gone sadly wrong because of recent events. Relationships have been soured and the whole process has been disrupted. None of these things has improved relationships within the schools, between teachers and education authorities, between teachers unions and the Government and between parents and teachers, all of which are in danger of going seriously sour.
  11.30 pm
  I have been a school governor for many years. It is now in vogue to say that there should be more parent governors with more powers, but my experience during the lifetime of this Government has been that many governors are extremely confused about their existing role and what is
  458
  happening to the education system. The Bill will add to their confusion and make them even more worried about the process in which they play a part.
  We have heard about head teachers, and you, Mr. Armstrong, were referred to with some distinction by my hon. Friends. I have talked to head teachers in my constituency and elsewhere, and they feel that the process within which they are involved, the relationships within their schools and their relationships with the wider community are seriously in jeopardy because of a failure over a number of years to resolve these problems. They are especially concerned that factors such as the career structure and the recruitment of younger teachers have not been well served.
  We must also talk about the teaching profession itself. In the early days of this Government I was a teacher in the further education sector. I shall be honest with the House. I left the teaching profession to work in the co-operative movement because, like my colleagues, I could see the way things were going. We felt that although there were growth sectors that could create new employment, the Government were not behind the education system. That process, which began in 1979, has merely accelerated to the extent that we are now in this sorry mess.
  We must forge a new consensus that will give people in the profession—parents, teachers, local education authorities and others—some confidence that we know what we are doing. Above all, it should be a consensus which, unlike the Bill, does not alienate the teachers.
  It is no good me or anyone else talking about partnership, consensus or a future for education if the end result is a disgruntled and unhappy teaching force. Education is a delicate balance between a number of interests that should not be seen as competing, because they are all to do with educating young people for a better future. That balance is totally destroyed by alienating the professionals in the way that the current process has done.
  I have already referred to, and praised, the services of ACAS. Why not let a balanced body that is respected by everyone mediate in this matter and come up with a solution? My hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) referred earlier to the contractual duties of main professional grade teachers, which, I understand, were agreed under the auspices of ACAS. An example of what can be achieved in the long term is the fact that several points have been agreed that should be highlighted.
  The second point agreed stated:
  "Promote the general progress and welfare of a class or group of pupils; to provide initial guidance counselling on educational, social and career matters and record and report on these matters and on the personal and social need of pupils; liaise and consult with parents and outside agencies, and attend meetings arranged for these purposes."
  We should expect teachers to perform such duties, but that is being put in jeopardy today.
  Another duty is to
  "Advise and co-operate with colleagues on preparation and development of courses of study, teaching materials team planning teaching programmes, methods and pastoral arrangements."
  That is honourable and proper, but it is jeopardised today.
  The document also says that another duty is to
  "Co-ordinate the work of other teachers"—
  Mrs. Rumbold: I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman. He is reading a list of duties for teachers which were agreed in recent negotiations with ACAS and at

  459
  Nottingham. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that those agreed duties are the duties originally proposed by my right hon. Friend the former Secretary of State?
  Mr. Howarth: I repeat that one of the duties is to
  "Co-ordinate the work of other teachers and undertake a defined role in the review, development and management of assigned curriculum, pastoral and organisational activities."
  Fine points have been agreed, but they are being jeopardised.
  Mr. Fatchett: The Minister's intervention makes our argument for us. The unions have moved towards the Government. Is it not about time that the Government moved towards the unions and bargained voluntarily with them? They are not prepared to do that.
  Mr. Howarth: That is the precise point. We are in danger of alienating the good will that emerged during the discussions and allowing the process to get out of hand.
  I have some suggestions about what the Government should concentrate upon. We should be trying to wring out positive things from the education system. Many teachers are concerned about this. They are concerned not only about salaries, but about status and career structures and how they relate.
  I am prepared to give the Government credit where it is due. They have achieved something with the police force, although that is unrelated to our discussion. Many of us take issue on some aspects of policing, but the police have a career and salary structure which builds for the future and for a high quality policy force. I accept that some benefit will be derived from that. If we can do that for the police force, why can we not do it for education? Why can we not trust in the goodwill and co-operation of an organisation such as ACAS to help us? Do the Government not believe that children deserve to be taught properly by a settled profession? The Government are not contributing towards the establishment of a settled profession.
  What are parents to think of an education system which is in disarray and which we think is about to enter a period of disruption and problems? As a parent, I know of all the problems involved in educating children and in the balance of people's domestic lives when they try to cope with the sort of disruption that is almost certain to follow the passing of the Bill.
  Children's futures will be damaged. Education opportunities will be missed and the potential to improve teaching and the running of our schools will be lost, because goodwill will be lost. The future of education will be undermined and the future of some children may be jeopardised.
  Local education authorities are dismayed by the Secretary of State's apparent obsession with the books that ILEA is worried about. He seems more interested in that topic than in what goes on in schools. The right hon. Gentleman is corresponding with the chairman of the education committee in Knowsley about whether there will be a city technology college in the area, and the chairman of the education committee has said that we in Knowsley are concerned with children
  "who have little or no support in the home and who are victims of other kinds of economic and cultural disadvantage".
  Those matters should be given more weight. They are not receiving the attention that they deserve because there is trench warfare between the unions and the Government.
  460
  I suggest that local authorities would be delighted if the dispute could be settled through ACAS in a sober, considered and thoughtful way so that we can get on with building up the education service. Many, probably most, teachers would accept that that would be an intelligent way forward. Once the agreement is settled and secure they can get on with the job that they trained for and aspire to—teaching children.
  The ACAS option would also give the profession the opportunity to settle matters for a generation or more. As with the police, new entrants would know what future and what pay scales to expect. I am sure that the profession would accept the ACAS option as a viable one. Once matters were settled, head teachers, who are another important ingredient, would welcome the chance to get on with organising the education of our children.
  The amendment would give all interested parties the opportunity to consign the recent past to history and to concentrate on the many issues that would still be outstanding. For example, what do we want from our education system and from our teaching profession in helping to deliver those objectives? How can we ensure that curriculum developments and teaching methods enable our children to realise their potential? I feel strongly about that matter, because I lived in an area where many of my contemporaries who were bright and had great potential did not get the chances to realise it. To a great extent, that is still true in my constituency.
  How do we involve the wider community? I am talking not of a trivial or flash-in-the-pan approach, but of involving the community, local government, the profession and parents in building a consensus in education. It is important to build on that consensus. We are talking about a partnership in which due weight is given to all those involved, and in which staff in the education system, parents, local education authorities and the wider community consider that they have a stake in the education service.
  By solving the vexatious and highly charged problem of pay, conditions and structure through ACAS, we shall open a road that will lead to new opportunities and to a new age in which we may properly discuss the problems of educating our children.
  11.45 pm
  Mr. Dormand: All hon. Members will agree with my hon. Friend's view. His speech has not only been eloquent and passionate, but very informed. His last point about partnership is crucial. Does he agree that, since they were elected in 1979, the Government have placed great importance—some may say they have had a fetish about it—on non-interference in local affairs? They have placed a great deal of importance on autonomy and letting local people get on with the job. My hon. Friend referred to the role of governors. He is right about that matter. The Government have made great play of the fact.
  Mr. Dunn indicated assent.
  Mr. Dormand: The Minister has shown his agreement. Since 1979 the Government have placed great importance on the role of governors. This is a draconian Bill, as my hon. Friend said, which represents complete and utter interference from the centre. I hope that my hon. Friend will agree that we must continue to repeat this fact. I suspect that Conservative Members know it, too, but are afraid to say so.
  Mr. Howarth: I take my hon. Friend's point. The Government pledged themselves to take the state off the backs of the people but they have put heavy burdens on the backs of many people, particularly those in the education service.
  As a former councillor, I believe that the autonomy of local government has been seriously jeopardised. That is reflected in the education service. A wealth of evidence has been produced by bodies such as the AMA and the ACC as well as by independent bodies. The Audit Commission has made criticisms. The evidence is so strong that we are sure that local autonomy has gone out the window. The Bill is one more example of that process.
  I referred to the crisis in the education service, which seems about to deepen. The forces to which I referred are likely to be even more disgruntled, worried and concerned. If right hon. and hon. Gentlemen fail to recognise that this is happening, in the short term there will be damage to the future chances and education of our children. In the long term, children will not achieve their aims. That is a serious concern of Labour Members. In the long term—Labour Members hope it is not too long—the Bill may be one more nail in the snug-fitting coffin that is being prepared for the Conservative Government.
  Mr. Cohen: I was disappointed that I was not called in the debate on the first group of amendments. I shall not go over them—[HON. MEMBERS: "GO on."]—although I am being egged on by my hon. Friends. I wanted to raise the issue of the breaches of international law that could occur under this legislation. The debate on the first group of amendments provided a good opportunity to consider International Labour Organisation conventions 98 and 151, to which the Government subscribed, yet they are now breaching them. That is a serious matter. As we know, the Government are relying heavily on international law to fight terrorism. Although this issue is not on the same scale, once international law is breached, no matter how small the breach—it is not small to the teachers—Britain's role in other important international matter is weakened. This debate is not the right time to make a point on that, but I hope that there will be opportunities later to debate possible breaches of international law under this legislation. I would welcome that, because the Chamber is full of lawyers, and it would be good to take advantage of informed legal expertise.
  The Government's continuous mishandling of this long-running dispute has been damaging to the teaching profession and to schoolchildren, who are being denied their fundamental right to education. Parents are increasingly angry about the Government's role in exacerbating this long-running dispute. It will be brought home to parents that this legislation will exacerbate the discontent in schools and the dispute. Parents will become wise to the Government's actions and will be very annoyed.
  Above all, the Government have shown their contempt for teachers. They have totally disregarded the role of ACAS in settling the teachers' dispute and in forming the framework to deal with future disputes and negotiations. I know that you have let the debate become a little wide-ranging, Mr. Armstrong—
  Dr. Marek: No.
  Mr. Cohen: I bow to my hon. Friend's greater experience in these matters. ACAS has a valuable role to play.
  ACAS has made recommendations regarding the replacement of Burnham. Those recommendations are contained in a Library briefing paper, which is an excellent summary. The document states:
  "The ACAS Agreement between the local authority employers and the teachers' unions (drawn up on 21 November 1986) proposed a new negotiating machinery in the form of a National Joint Council composed of representatives of the LEAs and the six teachers' unions to negotiate pay and other conditions of service for all teachers in maintained schools in England and Wales along the following lines."
  It is interesting to note that ACAS wished to involve the teacher unions and the employers directly in the national joint council. Just compare that with the Government's denial of such an effective role to the employers and the unions.
  The document continues by detailing the arrangements:
  "National Joint Council. The parties will establish a National Joint Council for the purpose of negotiating pay and other conditions of service for all teachers in maintained schools in England and Wales. Delivery of agreements. The parties will seek the introduction of a legislative requirement obliging LEAs to implement the salary scales agreed by the NJC. Otherwise, the agreements of the NJC will be made binding both on LEAs and on teachers through incorporation by the LEAs of national agreements into the contracts of individual teachers."
  Therefore, a formula is available to settle disputes.
  The document continues:
  "Composition of the NJC. The NJC will be composed of representatives of the local education authorities in England and Wales and of the six unions presently represented on the Burnham Primary and Secondary Committee. The balance of the representation on each side will be determined with the assistance of ACAS."
  That is much fairer than the Government's advisory committee, to which the Secretary of State will appoint whom he wants.
  On the role of the Secretary of State, the document states:
  "The parties will seek discussions with the Secretary of State on his role in the new machinery."
  By introducing this Bill, the Secretary of State is saying that he is not interested in getting round the table and working out a formula whereby everyone is involved in the negotiations. The document continues:
  "Local disputes. In drawing up the detailed constitution of the proposed NJC the parties will make arrangements for dealing with local disputes over the determination and application of national agreements and for access to those arrangements."
  I read that document because I think it is important to know what ACAS has said it recommends as the replacement for Burnham. It must be compared with the Secretary of State's proposal for replacing Burnham. He does not propose an integrated, detailed and fair formula which involves all the parties. He has said, "Burnham is no good; it will be replaced by me." ACAS has been constructive; the Secretary of State has been singularly destructive in this matter. ACAS has sought democratic solutions in replacing Burnham; the Secretary of State has made singularly undemocratic proposals.
  In reply to the earlier debate, the Secretary of State said that the parties had sought to impose their agreement, reached by the employers and the trade unions, with the help of ACAS, after very hard negotiations, upon him. In every other walk of life, employers and trade unions get

  463
  together, negotiate and make agreements that eventually stick, but the Secretary of State says that that is not good enough in this case. He is the odd man out in this process. He has put a block on the agreements that were reached after such hard negotiation. He is imposing his will upon the teachers and the employers.
  There will be great anger, not only among the teachers but among the parents as well, when it is realised that agreement was reached, yet that has been denied by the Secretary of State. In its place he has put his own wide-ranging set of impositions and powers. He is removing the right of teachers to negotiate and have a realistic say in the negotiations of their pay and conditions of service. The Bill gives the Secretary of State the power to impose any level of pay and conditions of service that he wishes on teachers in England and Wales. The Secretary of State will pick all the members of the advisory body and instruct them on what matters they can and cannot look into. He will tell them what money is available and what settlements cannot be made.
  12 midnight
  After all that, if the Secretary of State does not like what the advisory body says, he will have the power to over-rule any of its recommendations on his own. On top of that, he can make differential salary awards for different areas of the country and for teachers of different subjects. He has taken all those powers unto himself with no real democratic control upon him, and certainly without the people in the profession having a realistic say. He will be the only arbiter on pay and conditions of service of teachers and can modify or even ignore the advice of his own self-appointed advisory body.
  The Secretary of State is adopting a fundamentally undemocratic approach in the Bill. Teachers' rights are being ridden over roughshod. Free collective bargaining is to be denied and the valued ACAS role, to which I and other hon. Members have referred, is also to be ridden over roughshod. There is to be no place in the Secretary of State's scheme of things for ACAS in bringing the parties to the table to reach the necessary agreement.
  ACAS has not been lightly involved in these matters. Time is short, and nobody is interested in delaying these matters unduly, and other hon. Members want to speak, so I shall not read in detail the agreement that ACAS reached. However, let me read the list of contents of that agreement to show how serious and detailed has been the role of ACAS in obtaining that hard-won agreement.
  First, on the duties of teachers, the document lists their basic contractual requirements, the school-based job description and the voluntary activities. On the working time of teachers, it lists the days per year, the hours per week, the working time of head teachers and deputy head teachers. On the contractual limitations on teachers' workloads, it lists the class size and teaching support time, cover for absent colleagues, entry grade teachers and, teacher supply, On grade structure, it lists the general description of the new structure, the implementation from 1 September 1987, and the interim arrangements. On pay, it lists levels applicable from 1 September 1987, assimilation at 1 January and 1 September 1987, special education, starting salaries and incremental progression. On appraisal, it lists the ACAS working party report which was agreed easily by both sides.
  Mr. Freud: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the Committee, because he felt aggrieved at not being called
  464
  to speak on the last group of amendments, whether this is the speech that he would have made on those amendments or whether it is a completely new speech?
  Mr. Cohen: This series of amendments is about the role of ACAS. That is why I am referring to its role. If I had spoken in the debate on the previous group of amendments, I should have referred to the international law issue, to which I hope we shall return at a later stage.
  Dr. Marek: At this stage it might be appropriate to read out amendment No. 4. It says:
  "Clause 1, page 1, line 5, at end insert 'and is replaced by a negotiating machinery as set out in the document agreed under the auspices of the Advisory Conciliation and Arbitration Service between representatives of the local education authorities and of the teachers' unions.'"
  The purpose of my question is to ask my hon. Friend to confirm that he is quoting from the document that is mentioned in amendment No. 4.
  Mr. Cohen: Yes, that is the document from which I am quoting. The list is extensive and covers a wide range. Earlier in the debate the Minister of State said that her right hon. Friend the Secretary of State wanted to impose some of these conditions in the first place. That cannot be right, when so many new elements were agreed around the negotiating table between the parties.
  As for special education, the agreement says that teachers who are currently in receipt of special class allowances—those on existing scales 2S and 3S—will from 1 January 1987 receive an allowance of £855 and will continue to receive it. Assimilation into the main professional grade of an existing scale 2S and 3S will be on the basis of the equivalent incremental point on scales 2 and 3, as the case may be. That is not an unreasonable increment for special education teachers. We do not provide sufficient salary incentives to attract teachers into special needs education. If the Secretary of State throws out the ACAS agreement he will also throw out the minimum additional element that ought to be paid to those who teach children with special educational needs.
  As for class size, the agreement says that the overall class size limit of 33 shall be implemented as soon as possible and not later than 1 September 1987. It also states:
  "It is further agreed that an overall class size limit of 30 should be the first priority for implementation after the 1990 review".
  I think that classes of 33 are still enormous. Proper education will not be given to the children in the way that we would like. That is the very minium. It is probably below the minimum that should be accepted in our schools. I bet that in the private schools, there are not classes of 30 and 33. Why should the schoolchildren in the state schools have that number in classes? It is wrong. Again, the Government are throwing out that proposal. Apart from not wanting to put up the money to pay the teachers, I suspect that that was one of the reasons in the back of the Government's mind for not wanting the agreement. They are prepared to see classes well over that number continuing for a good time yet. It is a shame that that has gone out of the window.
  That is all that I want to say on the ACAS agreement—[HON. MEMBERS: "Good."]—directly about the agreement. If I had wanted to delay the Committee, I could have read many other passages from it. I am not keen to do so. Almost uniquely, the teachers are being

  465
  hammered by the Bill taking away their rights. Since 1919 they have had the right to negotiate their salaries and conditions of service. It has been enshrined in legislation since that time. The new proposal in the Bill which takes that away from them is unique in the history of public sector pay negotiations. No other group has been subjected to such authoritarian treatment by the Government. Other public sector groups with wage-fixing negotiations and agreements and independent review bodies could also suffer.
  The teachers should not have fewer rights and less protection against unreasonable and arbitrary behaviour by the Secretary of State or any Government than other groups of workers that have independent review bodies and negotiation machinery. On what possible justification can the Minister say that teachers should have fewer rights than those other groups? A precedent will be created.
  Dr. Marek: The only justification that the Secretary of State has is that he has a large majority. If the Government did not have that, and if there was a small majority, we would not have seen this legislation. There would have been no chance of it. After the next general election, there will be no chance of it. At the moment, the Government are in a fortuitous position. They thought of something that they could do to hammer the teachers even more, as my hon. Friend says. I cannot honestly think of any other reason why they are singling out the teachers in that way.
  Mr. Cohen: I agree with my hon. Friend. It is not morally justified and cannot be justified on any grounds of reasonableness.
  The Bill represents a precedent for other employees and employers in the public sector with the end of their role in free negotiations between the employees and employers. The negotiating machinery and the review bodies that all the other public sector workers have will inevitably be at risk following the precedent set by the Government against the teachers.
  Let me give some examples of all the other groups of workers who will be affected. There are loads of other bodies and negotiating machinery. The teachers in further education could suffer. About 700,000 professional, technical and clerical staff in local authorities could lose their rights if the precedent in set under the Bill is extended to them. Local authority manual workers have a national joint council and could suffer. There is the building and civil engineering NJC. Engineers, electricians, chief executives, chief officers, the probation service, magistrates courts, justices clerks, municipal airports and local authority fire brigades could suffer. The industrial Civil Service has a joint co-ordinating committee and could suffer. The non-industrial civil servants have a national Whitley council and eight Whitley councils cover the staff of the National Health Service such as ambulancemen, ancillary staff, dental services staff and many others. All those are at risk under the precedent that the Government are setting in teachers' pay negotiations. On top of that, as has been said, the police could be at risk from the precedent. Clearly that is quite wrong.
  12.15 am
  The precedent does not start with the teachers. It has been set before under the Government with the GCHQ dispute. The Government denied trade unionism and basic
  466
  civil liberties to the workers there. The Government are in the process of extending that. It is now the turn of the teachers and after that perhaps it will be the NHS workers or other groups of workers. The Government are adopting salami tactics in terms of their anti-civil-liberties, antidemocratic and anti-trade-union approach.
  The truth is that the Secretary of State and his predecessor had ample opportunity to settle the long-running dispute, but they blew it because of their prevarication and refusal to settle and provide the right resources when they had the opportunity to do so. Now, they are blowing it because of their authoritarian presumptions and the tendency to take all powers to themselves. The Government are blowing it because of the 19 conditions that the Secretary of State sought to impose without any flexibility and because they are riding roughshod over the negotiating machinery. The Secretary of State could have settled the dispute, but he is now in danger of it running on and on.
  Dr. Marek: My hon. Friend mentioned GCHQ. The Government have not been very successful there. I wonder whether there are lessons that should be learnt by GCHQ and whether they should not be making the same mistakes as they appear to be about to make with this Bill.
  The First Deputy Chairman (Mr. Ernest Armstrong):Order. The hon. Gentleman should not follow that line. We must stick to the amendments before the House.
  Mr. Cohen: I accept that, Mr. Armstrong, and that is what I have been seeking to do. I shall not respond to that point.
  Free collective bargaining and recognising the role of ACAS in settling a protracted dispute must be better than the Secretary of State taking all power to himself. The negotiated ACAS agreement shows that that formula works. That agreement introduced a system of appraisal of teachers for the first time, provided a detailed conditions of service agreement where none existed before, established a new negotiating machinery to replace Burnham, created a new salary structure for the profession and increased the salary levels to reward effective teaching. All that was in the ACAS agreement. It shows that free collective bargaining and ACAS involvement can work. That should be the approach adopted.
  ACAS is essential. Calling in ACAS does not mean that the teachers will refuse to settle unless they get the kind of handouts that take place in the City. The London Evening Standard of 6 November states:
  "Former defence secretary Sir John Nott, chairman of merchant bankers, Lazards, doubled his salary to £366,436 last year."
  I am sure that the teachers would settle for less than half that figure. Indeed, I am sure that they would settle for far less than the golden hellos of more than £100,000 that are now commonplace among merchant banks buying stockbrokers, jobbers and so on.
  New clause 1 refers to the role of ACAS in determining pension arrangements. In answer to a written question recently, I was told that top civil servants now receive a pension of £26,000 and a lump sum of more than £77,000. One wonders what the Cabinet Secretary, Sir Robert Armstrong, will get when he goes. He may talk about economy with the truth in Australia, but there will be no economy with the public purse when he goes. No teacher

  467
  expects a salary, let alone a pension, like that, but ACAS should at least be able to help teachers in determining their pension arrangements.
  The Secretary of State may impose his will this time round, but the dispute will still be brewing and boiling in the schools. The teachers' strong feelings about being underpaid will be compounded if the lid of the pressure cooker is screwed down and they are excluded from the negotiating process. That is bound to cause discontent and resentment, and I believe that further industrial action will be inevitable. The teachers themselves make that clear in their briefing to Parliament, when they say:
  "The Bill would seriously damage industrial relations. The Government is presenting this measure as a means of resolving the long-running teachers' pay dispute. Yet intervention of this kind is guaranteed to create disillusion in schools. With no avenue open for teachers to formulate aspirations and air grievances, this disillusion would simmer away in schools, leading to a de-motivated, unenthusiastic and uncommitted teaching force. If teachers are denied proper channels to enable their complaints to be redressed, such feelings would in due course be more likely to lead to increased disruption than any dissatisfaction that could arise from negotiating machinery."
  Clearly, further industrial action is likely to result from the Government's treatment of teachers in the Bill.
  The Government are being thoroughly cynical. They know that further industrial action is inevitable as a result of their proposals. They just hope that the Bill will delay it until after a general election. They will not have to worry about it then, because they will be in opposition. The only way forward must be direct negotiations and agreements freely reached with the help of ACAS. That is the only way in which our teachers and schools can get on with the essential job of educating the next generation for the benefit of the country. The Government's formula is one for chaos.
  Mr. Clay: One of the fascinating things about this debate is that it is not that long ago that many of the arguments that are being advanced by Opposition Members were being made by Conservative Members. The debate is about an amendment concerning the role of ACAS and the Government's refusal to accept its role and the settlement negotiated through it.
  I am on the moderate wing of the Labour movement, as my hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) can testify, because I sat on his general management committee for quite a time. He can vouch for the moderation of my views. There are people in the Labour movement and the trade union movement who, especially when they have been caught in a bitter dispute, have taken the view that ACAS is not necessarily always the best thing since sliced bread.
  That view is probably less popular than it used to be, but some people think that agreements negotiated through ACAS are sometimes not as good as those that can be achieved by slogging it out with the employer. We do not have to look back far to discover how much the Government's attitude has changed. The only recent dispute which had a bigger impact than the teachers' dispute on British society was that of the National Union of Mineworkers. After a certain point in that dispute, Ministers argued time and again that the NUM and its supporters ought to take up the agreement negotiated through ACAS by the National Association of Colliery Overmen, Deputies and Shotfirers. What a change there has been!
  468
  Not long ago the Government were begging people on strike to accept an agreement that was negotiated through ACAS, as though it was the final arbiter of proper procedure and wisdom in disputes. In the Government's mind, its role was almost God-like. One could argue that the NACODS agreement has turned out to be worthless when it comes to stopping pit closures or, indeed, anything else, but the Government, who backed the National Coal Board, argued that people should accept what was negotiated through ACAS. Here, the Government are trying to deny what has been negotiated. They are even opposing an amendment which would recognise the work of ACAS and write into the Bill the negotiating machinery that ACAS was instrumental in negotiating.
  As I am a moderate person, I have some knowledge of the way in which some people in the Labour movement think. It occurs to me that if I was a wild Trotskyite revolutionary who wanted to do a lecture at a weekend school for young comrades on the illusions of the parliamentary road to democracy, I could take as my text for the whole weekend the Government's conduct on the Bill and their attitude to the amendment. It would be a marvellous opportunity to argue that there is a great deal of cynicism about parliamentary democracy.
  The Secretary of State was earlier abusing Burnham, as he usually does, saying that it was unsatisfactory that at one time the NUT had a clear majority on it, and asking what sort of way that was to do business. That is an interesting point. The Government have a majority in the House of Commons, and it is extraordinarily cynical of a Government who claim that Labour Members are subversives and do not respect parliamentary democracy, to say in effect, "Who cares whether someone has a majority? What does a majority matter?" If a majority does not matter, the Government have no legitimacy. This is an illustration the Government's attitude towards democracy.
  12.30 am
  In my experience as a trade unionist, I learnt that ACAS can be an extremely useful and important body, sometimes even if it is never involved in the dispute. Often, when trade unionists are faced with a problem they say, "Let us involve ACAS," just as employers often say that. However, if one cannot involve ACAS, and the possibility of ACAS solving the dispute is discredited, that will have not just the effects about which Labour Members have talked, in teaching, schools, industrial relations in schools and so on, but a much wider industrial effect.
  In the future, anyone who suggests that ACAS does not have a solution and cannot settle the dispute, and perhaps it would be better to hold out for a different solution, will have a powerful argument. He will be able to say, "What is the point? After all those meetings, dragging through the weekends in London and Nottingham, balloting, conferences, and, finally accepting a negotiated agreement through ACAS, the Government just ripped it up and would not have it. What is the point of going to ACAS when the Government can deny and negate its efforts?"
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will my hon. Friend accept that in most trade unions there are differences of opinion within the executive, with one group wanting to negotiate, and one group not wanting to negotiate? My hon. Friend is illustrating the way that the Government are giving extra strength to those within an executive who may not want to negotiate through ACAS.
  Mr. Clay: I thank my hon. Friend for that point, because it will help me to move on. I do not want to take too much time. I was coming to that point.
  There are differing views, not only within the teaching profession, but within the different teaching unions, about the agreement. No hon. Member would have to go far to verify this. One could do so by walking into a school and talking to the teachers there. I can remember being in a school the day after the agreement was reached and asking teachers what they thought about it and the division of agreement within that staff group. Some teachers—I am not saying that I endorse their attitude—felt that the employers' agreement was not sufficient and that after all the struggle, the fundamental demoralisation, the agony that had been caused, the disruption and the cruelty of the Government towards education, something better should have resulted.
  I remember some people saying, "With a bit of luck, Baker will be daft enough to try to impose his own settlement on the profession and then we will be back in business, because he will not get away with it." I do not take any view about whether or not that is helpful, but by taking the attitude that they have done and by trying to discredit what ACAS has done, the Government are in many ways strengthening the hand of those who think that the employers' agreement was insufficient.
  The Secretary of State, and indeed no Minister or Government Member, is naive enough, or, for that matter, cynical enough, to say that because of the closeness of the vote in the NUT those who voted against were in a sense saying that the employers' agreement gave them too much. Those who voted against the agreement were clearly saying that even the agreement reached with the employers with the assistance of ACAS was not sufficient. The Government are strengthening the hand of those people, and in a sense one could ask why we should intrude on that grief when the Government are taking that attitude.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Dormand) said, democracy is at the hub of this argument. This is a fundamentally undemocratic measure. It relates to the wider question of democracy in society and the legitimacy of Parliament, and seems an extraordinary way to deal with legislation. My hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) and some Government Members quoted the details of the agreement, and my hon. Friend spoke about what is denied by this clause. Those denials could be replaced if our amendment were accepted. Those speeches demonstrated the complexity of these negotiations and the sensitivity of industrial relations in education. It seems quite extraordinary that, in the light of all that complexity, the Government can legislate on a historic and constitutional matter without a White Paper or a Green Paper.
  As an example for the class that one might hold if one were some wild-eyed revolutionary Trotskyist trying to demonstrate that in many ways the parliamentary process is a farce, one could have no better legislation. All that one would need to say was that when a Government are up against the wall and cannot get their own way, out goes all the nonsense about Green Papers, White Papers, consultation, hours during the night in Committee and lobbying. In two or three days flat, they just roll out their majority and steamroller the legislation through without consultation.
  That attitude is increasingly consistent with other activities of the Government and, as my hon. Friend the
  470
  Member for Leyton said, it is in the tradition of what the Government did at GCHQ. I know that we must not stray into that, but the action of the Government there is relevant to the amendment, because the Government are taking away not only the right of local authorities to negotiate, but their financial freedom so that they cannot spend what they want on education.
  In many ways, the Government have removed the freedom of speech. One of the interesting matters raised by the clause and by our amendment is that when one looks at the Government's employment legislation, one finds that the actions of many trade unionists in Britain will become more directly political. If the Bill is passed, the teachers unions will have no option other than direct conflict with the Government. If those unions are in dispute with the Government, they can either take strike action, causing disruption, or say openly that the Government are not prepared to deliver the pay and conditions that the teachers find necessary and call for the removal of the Government.
  If the Bill is passed, the teachers unions will quickly organise political fund ballots. The teachers will probably vote overwhelmingly for such ballots because, as a result of other Government legislation, those unions will be unable to say anything in negotiations, because any disagreement with the Government could bring them in contempt of the employment legislation that has already been enacted. That is another interesting example of the Government's cynicism.
  When the Government came to office they talked about rolling back the frontiers of the state. No Government have rolled in those frontiers more than this Government have done. My hon. Friend the Member for Easington said that there could not be anywhere else in the Western world where a Government could impose pay and conditions on trade unionists so directly without any proper consultation or negotiation. That may be so, because I have not studied the Western world in those terms, but I suspect that it is necessary to look to the German Democratic Republic, the Soviet Union, Hungary and other such countries for parallels. Some of my hon. Friends may disagree with me, but I am a moderate on these matters.
  There is a word which is often used loosely between those on the Left in Britain, but it is appropriate to describe the nature of the Government and what they are doing. The word is Stalinism. The Government's aim is centralised state bureaucracy. The Conservative party deluded sufficient of the electorate to make them believe that it was opposed to such bureaucracy and that the Labour party and Labour-controlled local authorities stood for it. The Government have rejected ACAS, which is recognised as an impartial arbiter, a pressure valve and a means to avoid conflict. They have decided to impose pay and conditions willy-nilly, and they must be described as Stalinist.
  There are many lessons that will be learnt from the Government's conduct. If they get away with the Bill, I dread to think—
  Mr. Tony Banks: To judge from some of his recent comments, I agree that my hon. Friend is becoming dangerously moderate in his views. Does he agree that there are many Members in this place, primarily Labour Members, who believe that the Conservative party will go along with parliamentary

  471
  democracy only if it serves its interests, and that as soon as it appears to threaten the interests of the class that it represents, parliamentary democracy will be cast aside? Will he accept that there is an element of that attitude in the Bill?
  Mr. Clay: My hon. Friend has made a useful intervention. It is not for me to refer to various political schools in explaining that view. It is extraordinary that the Government have provided such a classic textbook example to prove the validity of my hon. Friend's analysis of how society and this place work, how forces in society conflict and how conflicts are resolved, or not.
  The Government are not entirely philosophically consistent. They want to impose state direction on teachers, yet at the same time, being the opportunists that they are, the Secretary of State for the Environment is saying to certain local authorities, "Why do you not tear up the national agreements with your employees other than teachers and negotiate locally?" How can a Government be so inconsistent in wanting to impose central pay and conditions on teachers, while encouraging local authorities to tear up national agreements? The answer lies in the balance of forces and not in a consistent industrial relations philosophy. It is about taking whatever opportunity is best to break trade unions and to impose the lowest possible pay and conditions.
  12.45 am
  If the trade unions can be opposed and broken on a local basis, that is what the Government are in favour of. If they have to take on the job themselves, they will do it in a central and state bureaucratic manner. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) is quite right. This is about the Government using legislation only when it suits them to impose things that are in the interests of their class.
  Mr. Banks: Does my hon. Friend agree that as soon as parliamentary democracy stands in the way of the Conservative party, parliamentary democracy will go out of the window?
  Mr. Clay: Indeed. Before my hon. Friend intervened I was about to make that point. If the Government get away with this, I dread to think what will be next. People have said of the Government, "They could not do that," yet a year or two later they have done it. People have then said, "Well, they have got away with that, but they would never go that far," yet they have. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. If this Government are elected again—I am quite sure that they will not be—and if the present crisis conditions continue, many of which have been made worse by their own conduct as a Government, there are no lengths to which they will not go to impose their will in the interests of their class.
  Mr. Banks: That will be so if the worst of all possible currencies takes place and the Conservative party wins the next general election. However, the more likely possibility is that the Labour party will win the next election. We shall then have an elected Socialist party committed to Socialist policies, and the Conservative party may attempt to undermine it. Are there not indications in the Bill that that attitude to a democratically elected Socialist Government would lead Conservatives to try to undermine them?
  The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I hope that the hon. Member for
  472
  Sunderland, North (Mr. Clay) will not be tempted to go too far down that road, as we are now straying too far from the amendment.
  Mr. Clay: I accept what you say, Sir Paul. I realise that to give a full answer to the fascinating question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West would be to stray a little too far from the Bill. I shall therefore restrict my reply.
  If, after a long dispute, an agreement between employers and trade unions negotiated through ACAS — which included future negotiating machinery that replaced the machinery that the Government wanted to see the back of—was ripped up by the Government, who said, "We shall impose our own settlement," many people would say, "Even Tories do not do that." We have learnt that they do. Therefore, the point made by my hon. Friend is very worrying. He is saying that if this Government were re-elected — which is totally improbable—we would see quite terrifying things, and this Bill is terrifying enough. It sends a cold chill up one's spine to think that this Government have such contempt for democracy, as exemplified by their attitude in the Bill, that even when we have a Socialist Government who are trying to undertake a Socialist reconstruction of society they are likely to get up to such antics.
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I am sorry that I did not hear all the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Clay), or that of my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen). I have just returned from the picket line at the Wapping print dispute—
  Mr. Forth: Are they still there?
  Mr. Corbyn: I witnessed an example of oppressive government. The Government pay thousands of police to keep 5,000 people out of work. They have such inadequate industrial relations legislation that a private sector employer is allowed to dismiss people at will.
  The Government's attitude to ACAS over the teachers' pay dispute, and over education disputes generally in the last five years, shows that they are trying to establish the rule of the jungle in the public sector. They openly applaud the rule of the jungle in the private sector and they are prepared to pay for a private army—the police force—to support the likes of Rupert Murdoch.
  Mr. Clay: I take the point. My hon. Friend is saying that there is nothing consistent in the Government's attitude other than their wish to oppose trade unionists and to strengthen employers' hands. They argue that black is white on one occasion and that white is white on another. Not long ago Ministers and Government Back Benchers asked us, "Why do you not accept ACAS? Why do the miners not accept the NACODS agreement?" That agreement was negotiated through ACAS. The Government said that it was the most wonderful agreement then, but it was not worth much. Not long ago the Government said that ACAS had achieved a wonderful agreement—although it was worthless—and now the Government say that they are not interested in the agreement. They want to keep ACAS out and to have the right to impose conditions directly.
  I return to what I was about to say when my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West made his helpful intervention about more philosophical matters.

  473
  The Bill is a classic illustration of the Government's cynicism. The parliamentary system is shown to be worthless when the Government put on their big boots and put the boot into the trade unions. It is a classic text for those who argue that the issue is about the class war. This Government use this place as a convenience so that they can put rubber stamps on aims which they cannot achieve by other means. It is ironic, but that is a lesson to those who argue that that is the nature of society.
  If I were the Stalinist that I described earlier, and if I did not take the view that I do of places such as the Soviet Union, the German Democratic Republic, Hungary and Poland I would suggest that we have heard much about spies, KGB agents and double agents in recent weeks, and I believe that we would be talking not only about the former head of MI6 and Lord Rothschild, but about people on the Government Front Bench. They have, in many senses, justified the Marxist analysis of class war more successfully than any of my hon. Friends could have done.
  Mrs. Rumbold: It may be convenient if I intervene now. We have had some interesting speeches, including that of the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Clay), though his contribution was slightly inaccurate.
  The hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) raised four issues. He said that we were discussing ACAS negotiated agreements which were brought about, in part, because the pay of teachers had fallen behind that of other groups. The Government have largely recognised that. There is on the table an average pay rise of 16·4 per cent. on top of the 7 per cent. awarded at the end of March. Together they add up to a rise of 25 per cent. for the 18 months to October 1987.
  No one has objected to the additional sum of £600 million for teachers. It seems to be a generally agreed and acceptable figure. It is helpful to point that out. However, my right hon. Friend has said—and I believe that most people think that he is being reasonable—that there must be something in return for that large sum of money.
  For a number of years I and others tried to get conditions of service discussed at the same time as pay rises. Conditions had to be brought into the package and a clear definition of a teacher's job and a structure with sufficient incentive posts seems a reasonable return for that money.
  Mr. Mark Fisher: Will the Minister explain what detailed differences she sees between the 13-point agreement at ACAS and the 19 points that the Secretary of State insisted on? We might then be able better to understand what more she feels should be given in return for the £600 million.
  Mrs. Rumbold: I was about to come to that matter. My right hon. Friend has recognised that useful progress has been made in recent months during the long, drawn-out negotiations between the employers and the unions. He has made that plain to the House on a number of occasions and did so on Monday this week and on 27 November. We welcome the emergence of a clear definition of the teacher's job.
  Mr. Hunter: I greatly welcome what my hon. Friend is saying. It is worth stressing, because the Opposition often
  474
  say that if the money now on offer had been made available some months ago we would not have reached the present situation. However, the essential point is that if we had injected that money some months ago we would not have been able to renegotiate the contractual side of teachers' obligations. The money is on offer because there has been movement in the negotiations on contracts.
  Mrs. Rumbold: My hon. Friend is exactly right. He makes an important point, because teachers need to know what is a reasonable expectation for their day-to-day work, head teachers and local authorities need to know that there is no doubt about what can be expected from teachers under their contracts and parents need to be assured that teachers will be fully committed to the education of their children.
  The teacher's working year was agreed at 195 days, which gave days five more than the pupil year for in-service training and other activities that are essential to the smooth running of schools and the career development of individual teachers. It has also been agreed that teachers should be available for work at the direction of the head for 1,265 hours a year. That is not a full statement of the professional teaching commitment, but I am told, and I believe, that many teachers devote many more hours to pupil assessment, lesson preparation, and so on. The 1,265 hours represent the amount of time during the year when head teachers will be able to call upon teachers for teaching, meetings, pupil supervision, and other activities that necessarily may have to be undertaken at specified times.
  1 am
  The Bill represents an extremely positive set of benefits for employers, teachers and schools. My right hon. Friend has fully recognised that fact. There are no differences. As my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) said, it is significant that the Bill has come about through a long, drawn-out period.
  Mr. Radice: Negotiation.
  Mrs. Rumbold: Not really negotiation. One has to remember, as I tried to remind the hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth), that the original suggestions for a set of teachers' conditions came from my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) some months ago.
  Mr. Radice: No, it did not. It came from the employers long before that.
  Mrs. Rumbold: The 19 points that my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East put on the table essentially became the points that were worked on by the employers and the unions during many discussions over some years.
  Mr. George Howarth: I did not disagree with their origin. Others would know better than I do. I pointed out that the Bill prejudices the potential for agreement.
  Mrs. Rumbold: I shall refer to that point. It is important for Opposition Members to recognise that this has come about not because one or two people sat down and thought about this matter over the past six or nine months. It has been a long, slow, drawn-out process of drawing the unions, I regret to say, to the point at which it had to be agreed that the conditions of service must be included in the discussions about pay.
  Mr. Radice: Of course it has been a long, drawn-out process. It is a process of negotiation and acceptance. It is true that the trade unions have moved a long way. I acknowledge that the former Secretary of State played a part. I think the hon. Lady mentioned the fact that, in 1984, the local authorities put forward their own opinions about what they thought should be done by teachers. Their 13 points have been accepted in the ACAS agreement. I am sure that the hon. Lady will agree with that.
  Mrs. Rumbold: The conditions of service have been worked out over a long period. They were worked out by employers, by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East, and also, to a certain extent, by trade unions. There is no disagreement about this matter or about my right hon. Friend being grateful and glad that this has come to pass. Because he has a duty to provide sensible education, he must secure for the teaching profession, to his satisfaction, not only conditions of service and reasonable pay, but something that he considers essential — a clear definition of the structure with sufficient incentive posts.
  We have heard a great deal of discussion about the imposition of the ACAS agreement. Amendment No. 4 seeks to replace the discredited Burnham machinery. We have heard from many hon. Members that the Burnham machinery was no longer satisfactory. I remind Opposition Members that the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) said that on a number of occasions the Remuneration of Teachers Act was placed before various Secretaries of State. It was suggested that they should carefully consider the machinery, because it no longer seemed to work. Indeed, I remember leading such a delegation to one Secretary of State and suggesting that the Remuneration of Teachers Act was no longer a suitable way of negotiating pay and conditions of service because, in those days, we could not touch the teachers' conditions of service. We are not talking about anything new.
  The amendment seeks to replace the discredited Burnham machinery with what is contained in the ACAS agreement, which, we are told, has been signed by a majority of the employers and four of the six unions. Of course, the Committee is aware that two of those signatories—the Secondary Heads Association and the Professional Association of Teachers—have pulled out of the deal. The National Association of Head Teachers was not a signatory. Both head teachers associations, representing those who have to manage the schools, have less faith in the structure which is being considered than Labour Members, who will not have to suffer from it. Two of the six unions remain inside the ACAS agreement. Even if the hon. Member for Durham, North is correct in assuming that balloting of the AMMA and the NUT will make it possible for them to say that a majority of teachers favour the deal, the majority of unions are clearly not in favour of it.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made clear to the Committee why the Government find the proposals which are on the table unacceptable. Our reasons are centred on cost and the absence of a proper promotion structure for the teaching profession.
  Mr. Fisher: If the hon. Lady is so confident about the views of teachers on the Government's proposals, will she or the Secretary of State ballot all teachers and let them
  476
  judge whether the Secretary of State has got it right? He will not, because he knows that teachers would overwhelmingly reject his proposals.
  Mrs. Rumbold: Sadly, my right hon. Friend does not have the power to ballot the teachers. Only the trade unions have that power.
  Mr. Radice: Do not disparage their ballots.
  Mrs. Rumbold: My right hon. Friend has just been challenged to ballot the teachers. I have no doubt that, if he had the power, he would be only too willing to ballot individual schools. That would be much to his liking and would be very much in the interests of the world at large.
  Mr. Fisher: There are plenty of opportunities in this place, or in another place, to table a new clause to give the Secretary of State powers. The Opposition would not oppose such a new clause. We would be extremely interested to see what a ballot on this issue would reveal. We would assure a fair hearing and passage for such a new clause. I challenge the Government to table that new clause if they are so confident of their views.
  Mrs. Rumbold: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would love to challenge me to table all sorts of new clauses, but at the moment I am busy answering the debate. It would probably be beneficial if I continued to do so.
  There are cost difficulties. There is a substantial sum which the agreement includes and which is not acceptable to the Government. There are several other loose ends and obscurities. The key points of the proposed new negotiating machinery are not clear. The largest head teachers union favours separate arrangements for the head teachers. That is not directly dealt with in the ACAS document. Pay is to be statutory, but apparently conditions are not. That risks plunging us all back into the morass of local disputes on conditions of service. Local authorities are to incorporate the new conditions of service in teachers' contracts, but there is silence on the enforcement of contracts by the local education authorities. To put it at its lowest, there is room for doubt over local negotiation of elements of the proposed contract.
  The major omission in the ACAS document is the role of the Government. Paragraph 7.4 of the ACAS document states:
  "The parties will seek discussions with the Secretary of State on his role in the new machinery."
  But paragraph 7.3 of the document states that the national joint council proposed by ACAS would be composed of employers and unions. "Employers" means the local authorities, so it is hard to see what significant role is envisaged for the Government. In a sense, the Government have a role, because they fund the local authority employers to the tune of 46·4 per cent. That may not seem an enormous proportion to some people, but it represents a substantial proportion of the total amount that is spent by local authorities on paying teachers. Since we are talking about the amount of money that is spent by local authorities on the education service, I suppose that it is not disputed that a substantial amount of the rate support grant given to local authorities goes to the education service.
  It is well known that the education authorities absorb an enormous amount of the rate support grant. That is perfectly acceptable, but it is a fact that must be

  477
  recognised. It must also be recognised that the Government, who foot the bill, should have a firm and clear role in any negotiating machinery that decides on the pay of teachers. A role confined to picking up the tab for any agreement is not acceptable. Since 1944, Governments have had power to contain the cost of school teachers' pay, which is now well over £5 billion. I doubt whether any Government would be willing to cede their right to have a voice in a negotiated agreement on the year-on-year arrangements for teachers' pay.
  From 1965, a concordat between the Government and local authorities operated, giving the Government a weighted vote on the Burnham management panel and a veto over total cost. That operated very well until 1985, when it was unilaterally repudiated by the employers. Since then we have had 18 months of unsatisfactory negotiation and unjustifiable disruption in our schools. This wonderland of unrealistic negotiations simply cannot continue. The Bill restores a proper role for the Government in teachers' pay negotiations and links that to the duties and responsibilities of teachers for the first time.
  The amendment is a recipe for further chaos picked out from the ramshackle agreement, which commands limited support, and which has been swallowed lock, stock and barrel by Opposition Members. In the interests of the children in our schools, I urge the Committee to reject the amendment.
  Mr. Madden: At the heart of tonight's debate, as at the heart of all our debates on education during the past two years, lie the proper salaries needed to recruit, retain and motivate teachers. Like many hon. Members, I have had conversations with teachers. One—a head of an upper school in my constituency—was deeply worried about the education that he could offer the children in his school. He contrasted two appointments: one for a managerial post in the youth training service in Bradforrd, which attracted more than 80 applicants, and two teaching posts in his school, both of which were nationally advertised. he received one application for one post and no applications for the other. Both those posts carried salaries of about £7,000 a year.
  The second conversation that I had today was with a teacher who was an NUT representative, who told me bluntly that if the Government and those who support them in their activities think that they will bring early peace to the classrooms of Britain, they are not only fooling themselves, but attempting to fool Britain's parents and public.
  1.15 am
  I believe what my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Clay) and many others have said about the corporatist nature of the Bill. Mussolini would have been proud of it because we have here a Secretary of State, a Minister of the Crown, seeking to take unto himself highly centralised powers over the education service. We have a Secretary of State who wants to end the bargaining rights of teachers to negotiate their salaries and conditions of service. We have a Secretary of State who only a few days ago was talking about his ambition to set a national curriculum for the children in Britain's schools. We have a Secretary of State who recently announced 20 city technology colleges which he hopes to establish in
  478
  inner cities throughout Britain. Those colleges, if they come, will cream off the most talented children and staff and in my part of the world they will find great difficulty in getting private industry to find the millions of pounds necessary to establish those colleges.
  My constituents want the Government to put available resources into the maintained sector. They want pupil-teacher ratios reduced. They want the fabric of the schools improved and the quality of education substantially improved. They do not want this highly centralised corporatist legislation which will not bring peace to our schools and will do nothing to improve the quality of education which our children receive at school.
  The Government are deliberately seeking to provoke substantial numbers of parents into declaring war on teachers. That is what they have been about. It was revealed earlier today that the Government are so fearful of teachers because they have launched sustained action over two years in pursuit of reasonable salaries to recruit, retain and motivate teachers.
  The Government are confused and frightened and do not know what to do in the face of the challenge that they have received from Britain's teachers. Therefore, the Government have chosen to use the legislation to intimidate teachers, to drive them to accept an enforced pay settlement.
  Mr. Hunter: As a former schoolteacher, I feel obliged to dispute profoundly the hon. Gentleman's underlying point. What the Government are now doing is precisely what he demanded in his opening comments—to attract, retain and motivate teachers. That can only be done by the sort of measure that my right hon. Friend is seeking to implement.
  Mr. Madden: This is the second occasion—
  Mr. Hunter: The fourth.
  Mr. Madden: This is the fourth occasion on which the hon. Gentleman has intervened and on each occasion he has reminded us that he was a teacher. I understand that he was a teacher at Harrow.
  Mr. Hunter: I remind the hon. Gentleman that during my brief interim at Harrow school the staff did not benefit from Burnham scale salaries.
  Mr. Madden: The hon. Gentleman's intervention epitomises the lack of understanding by this Government and the Conservative party of the education that the majority of children in this country receive. It stems from the fact that the Conservative party does not understand or use our education system. Therefore, it is fundamentally uninterested in and disregards the education that the majority of our children receive. The Opposition want to give children the most decent start in life that we can provide for them. That is why we oppose this measure. It will do nothing to improve the quality of education for the vast majority of our children. It will not help to recruit and retain teachers and motivate them to provide the best possible education for our children. The Government are confused and frightened. They do not know how to handle the situation with which they are confronted.
  Mr. Corbyn: I agree with my hon. Friend about the effect on the teaching profession and upon teachers in general, but does he not agree that this is a very serious matter? The Government are taking centralised control over an industrial dispute. It is exactly the kind of control

  479
  that they could take in any other circumstances, if they were allowed to get away with it, by imposing wage settlements, in just the same way as they have taken away the safety net of minimum wage legislation. It will have serious consequences for industrial relations in every industry and in every profession.
  Mr. Madden: Indeed. Because of the factors to which my hon. Friend has referred, very many other workers in the public sector are extremely concerned about this measure. They regard it as a threat to them. They, too, fear that their bargaining rights will be taken away. It is no use the Government saying that that is a fanciful suggestion. We need only to look back to GCHQ where the Government took away the right of people to enjoy trade union membership.
  In this measure the Government are displaying their anti-trade union posture. This Secretary of State for Education and Science will seek publicly to deny that. Many references have been made to the Secretary of State as a man of sweet reasonableness, as the man with the smiling mask, but behind that smiling mask is a person with centralist ambitions. He wants to set a national curriculum, and before long he will want to appoint every headmaster and to take more and more powers unto himself. That is how this Government seek to control something which they do not know how to handle.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: On my hon. Friend's point about the so-called sweet reasonableness of the Secretary of State for Education and Science, does my hon. Friend realise that there is something else about this Bill that has to be noted? Having made a minor improvement to his standing inside the Tory party, the Secretary of State—looking to the time when the Prime Minister has gone, and coming from what is loosely regarded as the "wet" side of the Tory party, although many of us on this side of the House would say that there is not a gnat's whisker between any of them—is using the Bill to impose a settlement in order to try to improve his virility symbolism within the Tory party so that he will get the votes after the Tory party has got rid of the Prime Minister. The Secretary of State is prepared to scupper the Burnham negotiating machinery in order to try to look after No. 1 at a later date.
  Mr. Madden: As always, there is a great deal in my hon. Friend's speculation on this point. Parents recognise that although for two years the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) told us that absolutely no money was available to resolve the teachers' dispute, this Secretary of State remarkably quickly found substantial additional resources to offer the teachers. Unfortunately, instead of adding a little bit to those additional resources and allowing proper negotiations to proceed, he has sought to confront the teachers by introducing the measure, which has been deliberately designed to enable the Secretary of State to enforce a pay settlement upon the teachers.
  Mr. Corbyn: Is my hon. Friend aware that the charm of the Secretary of State may well have got through to a few journalists in the Murdoch empire, but I hear that it is fading fast in Mole Valley, where all this week the local newspapers have carried as a headline a statement by the
  480
  prospective Labour candidate, Mr. Chris King, condemning what the Government are doing, and in particular the Secretary of State's role in attacking teachers in his constituency?
  Mr. Madden: I said that the second conversation that I have had with teachers today included a warning that if the measure were enacted, and if a pay settlement were imposed, it would do nothing to bring peace to our classrooms. I should like to read an extract from a letter written by Ian Murch and Howard Roberts, both NUT executive members for west Yorkshire:
  "This 'realistic choice' that we are being offered is between having our throats cut by Kenneth Baker or agreeing to cut them ourselves. Under either plan we agree to the abolition of teaching as a profession in return for pitiful amounts of money. Weakness encourages bullies, and the 'realism' we are asked to endorse will encourage Baker to press on with the abolition of collective bargaining over teachers' pay and conditions rather than appease him.
  The real alternative is what it always was—a decent rise for the job that teachers do now."
  That is a fair statement of the view held by a large majority of teachers. What they want is a decent rise for the job that they now do. They want a decent salary that will be sufficient to recruit, retain and motivate teachers. They want resources to be put into the education service so that the problem of the crumbling schools in my constituency and my city can be tackled urgently. They want more resources to be put into the education service so that more good teachers can be appointed and so that we can reduce the size of classes. We want more resources so that children in constituencies such as mine can be given the equipment that they desperately need, and so that they can be given a half decent start in life.
  That is what the people want. That is what the parents want. That is what the children want. They do not want this corporatist nonsense that will put off the day to which we can look forward, when peace comes to our classrooms. The responsibility for that lies squarely with the Secretary of State and with the Government. If they steamroller the legislation through the House in the way that they now propose, I am certain that they will live to rue the day.
  Dr. Marek: I listened with interest to the Minister as she wound up the debate. I noted four things that she said.
  First, the hon. Lady said that the majority of the teachers might support the deal by ACAS, but the majority of unions do not. What type of democracy is that? I thought that the Conservative party would be committed to one person, one vote, but apparently that is not so. When it suits the Government, they are prepared to waive the rules a little and abide by some other rules.
  The hon. Lady then said that at last there will be a proper role for the Government in the determination of teachers' pay. I doubt whether it will be a proper role. It will be the whole role, and no one else will have any role at all. The most interesting was thing that she said that the Secretary of State had no powers to order a ballot on the Government's 19 points and pay scales and that she would be delighted if the Secretary of State had that power because she was sure that he would like to hold a ballot. There are ways of organising a ballot without necessarily giving the Secretary of State powers to do it. We would have to oversee it to ensure that it was right, but a ballot could be arranged by all the teachers on the basis of one person, one vote, to see whether the Government's

  481
  preferred solution is the one that they favour, or whether they favour the ACAS deal. I somehow suspect that we will not get much from the Government on that.
  1.30 am
  Mr. Corbyn: What my hon. Friend is saying is interesting. From my knowledge of teachers in my constituency, I know that what he has said is correct, in that the teachers are extremely unhappy, worried and frustrated. The most interesting feature of the teachers' dispute in the past year and a half has been the unstinting support of large groups of parents around the country for the teachers' general case that they are underpaid, that they are being badly treated by the Government, that they are trying to improve the education service and that the real enemy of the education service is the Minister who was sitting on the Government Front Bench, but he has fled already.
  Dr. Marek: That is a good point. I am sorry to say that my hon. Friend is absolutely right. If a big well opened up underneath the Government's feet and they all fell in, we would have much more success in education in this country.
  Mr. Roland Boyes: Does my hon. Friend recall that the year before the six metropolitan counties and the Greater London council were abolished there was an opportunity for an election for councillors to those authorities which would have given the people living in those areas the opportunity to express a view about abolition? Does he further recall who was the Minister of State, Department of the Environment at that time and who led for the Conservative party on the Bill for abolition? It was the same man who has proved, once again, that he is not a democrat and that he is totally against the ballot box. He was against the ballot box for the abolition of the metropolitan councils and the GLC, and he has not been in favour of one person, one vote, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) has suggested, to enable the teachers to express a view. The people were not allowed to express a view then, and the teachers are not being allowed to express a view now. It is no coincidence that the Secretary of State for Education and Science was the Minister of State, Department of the Environment at that time.
  The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. I hope that the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) will not be tempted in extending the debate. We must stick to the Bill and this amendment.
  Dr. Marek: I am grateful to you, Sir Paul, for your advice. I am also grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) for making that comment. In obedience to your strictures, Sir Paul, I shall say nothing about that, but the House has heard what my hon. Friend had to say.
  The Minister of State said that the agreement is ramshackle. I have the agreement before me. It is quite lengthy and it goes into a lot of detail. I do not understand in what ways it is ramshackle. I am tempted to go through it in detail and invite the Minister at appropriate times to point out the ramshackle bits of it.
  Mr. Gerald Birmingham: Does my hon. Friend agree that the definition of ramshackle applies
  482
  to the sections with which the Minister does not agree and which do not support her point of view? In those circumstances, the Government will seek to use any superfluous and almost asinine phrase in order to attack it.
  Dr. Marek: I hope that it was just a throwaway phrase that was given to the Minister by her advisers sitting in the Box, without proper consideration.
  Mr. Boyes: During the Minister's speech I was studying a certain part of the Bill because I shall be making a contribution to the debate. Therefore, I am not exactly sure of the context in which she used the word "ramshackle". It would help if my hon. Friend would remind us, because a few minutes have gone by since the hon. Lady sat down. Will my hon. Friend put the word into context?
  Dr. Marek: The Minister was urging us not to support the amendment because it was based on a ramshackle agreement. The Minister nods, so that was the sense of it. I believe that that view is quite wrong, so it may be worth delving into the matter a little further.
  Mr. Cohen: Does my hon. Friend recall that the Minister intervened earlier to claim that certain elements of the agreement were there only because the Government wanted them there as part of their 19 points? If that is so, the hon. Lady cannot then claim that it is a ramshackle agreement.
  Dr. Marek: The more we consider the Minister's comments, the more we become aware of the inconsistencies in the Government's position. My hon. Friend is right. The Minister cannot have it both ways. As my hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) said, the unions have moved a long way on this. In the light of what has been said, it may be useful to read out the Minister's 19 points and consider to what extent the agreement satisfies them.
  Mr. Corbyn: It is clearly essential to go into the detail of the agreement. Is my hon. Friend aware that in education and in local government generally there are many other agreements between employing authorities and trade unions representing manual grades, white collar grades, teachers, and so on? If the principle behind the clause is the imposition of a pay settlement on the teachers, the same could be done for any other freely negotiated agreement between local authority employers and employees, giving the Secretary of State the power to veto any agreement over and above national agreements in those sectors. If the Bill goes through, chaos could ensue in industrial relations throughout local government.
  Dr. Marek: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Bill will not solve the problems of the teaching profession. It will make them much worse.
  I am conscious of the time that we have taken so far. We have taken about nine hours to get halfway through the second group of amendments. At that rate, we shall be here for another hundred hours.
  Mr. Corbyn: It is going to be a cold night for the Minister.
  Dr. Marek: I hope that we shall make more rapid progress as the night goes on. If not, we shall lose not only

  483
  Thursday and Friday's business but also the Consolidated Fund Bill debate on Monday. I shall therefore try to speed up my remarks.
  The amendment seeks to replace the blanket powers given to the Secretary of State by some form of control. It is always dangerous to give blanket powers to one person. I should like to hear any Conservative Member try to defend the kind of blanket power that is given to the Secretary of State by the Bill.
  Mr. Forth indicated dissent.
  Dr. Marek: I shall be happy to give way if the hon. Gentleman can tell us how that blanket power is restrained or curtailed in the Bill, because I cannot see any restraint on it at all.
  Mr. Bermingham: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Bill has been approached in a dictatorial manner, in that most Bills go into Committee upstairs, as will the Criminal Justice Bill tomorrow? The Government seem to want to take dictatorial powers and use their vast majority to deny ordinary Members the right to disagree at length and at leisure.
  Mr. Forth: What is the hon. Gentleman doing now?
  Dr. Marek: I do not know whether I can help my hon. Friend, because this is a Committee of the whole House.
  I wonder why the Government are rushing forward now, after two years of delay as they put it. They have suddenly introduced this draconian Bill which gives the Secretary of State blanket powers. Apparently no more delay can be tolerated. The Secretary of State must have his powers, and he will not even think of accepting the amendment.
  Mr. Nellist: My hon. Friend was present earlier when I touched on these matters for a few minutes. Does he remember my saying that we should be wary of being too critical of the fact that the Secretary of State is rushing the Bill through because it will be a useful precedent for a future Labour Government who want to tackle the problems of mass unemployment, decaying housing, low living standards and inadequate pensions? Such a Government may wish to get through in two sittings legislation which helps working people.
  The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. We really must stick to the amendment.
  Dr. Marek: In view of what you have said, Sir Paul, I shall not comment on what my hon. Friend has said, but the House has heard him.
  What the Government are proposing is not a solution. Even 15 years ago, the teaching profession was held in high esteem. People looked up to teachers and thought that they were doing a good and necessary job that was essential if this industrialised nation was to stay at the forefront of technology. Is it not strange that teachers have lost that esteem and professional image? That would not be a party political point but for the fact that it has happened since the Government came to power. We now find that we are quibbling about hours of work outside teaching, dinner duties and marking homework. What have we come to?
  There has been a sad decline, and I regret it. When I was at school, teachers did their job and were paid reasonably for it. If they were not, they did not complain. Hon Members may be able to explain that. There is clearly
  484
  something wrong, and the Government cannot absolve themselves of responsibility, because they have been in office since 1979. They have not been a moderate consensus Government but an extremist Rightist Government.
  Mr. Nellist: Raving Rightist.
  Dr. Marek: I shall stick to "extremist Rightist" because that sums them up well. They have made their mark on how the country regards itself, its wealth and how much it can produce. As part of this, they have made their mark on the teaching profession and on the standards and quality of education.
  I shall not run down the human race, and certainly not teachers, who battle against all the odds in trying to do a job, and now have to battle hard just to stand still. In many cases, because of the Government's actions, they are slowly being sucked backwards, in spite of their desire to do a proper job.
  I should like to return to the situation of 10, 15 or 20 years ago, but the Government are not going about it in the right way. They would if they accepted the amendment, because ACAS would be concerned, and any agreement—if would have to be an agreement—going into the details of terms and conditions of work and remuneration would be freely entered into. If the Government do not accept the amendment, the Secretary of State will, by diktat, be able to impose his will. That will not solve anything.
  1.45 am
  ACAS is seen to be impartial, which is part of the ILO convention to which some of us referred. If it were involved in the talks, the teaching profession would be confident that it was not about to be sold down the river in any negotiations, that any agreement would be carried out fairly, and that there would be no hidden Government agenda. All too often, the Government have hidden agendas. We do not know what the Government intend. The Bill does not tell us what the Secretary of State intends.
  To be fair, we have a press release from the Department of Education and Science, dated 31 October 1986, entitled,
  "Kenneth Baker's 16 per cent. pay offer to teachers."
  It is not about the pay offer, but is about the 19 points and conditions. I shall develop my argument about what will happen if the Government get their way over the Bill by referring to the salary scales contained in the press release and those in the ACAS agreement. My hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North referred to them earlier.
  With the ACAS agreement, the main professional grade starts at £9,970 and goes up to £15,058, whereas the Secretary of State's nine-point scale starts at £7,900 and goes up to £12,700. Clearly, teachers will not have as much job satisfaction from their remuneration if they accept the Government's scale. That starts about £2,000 lower and finishes about £2,400 lower.
  Mr. Bermingham: Does my hon. Friend agree that if one pays peanuts, one gets monkeys? Is not the tragedy of the teaching profession that, by and large, over the past 20 or 30 years there has been a failure to recognise that teachers are a valuable part of our society and to remunerate them properly? Is the Secretary of State not going back to the poor law type state of the 1890s and 1910s, when teachers were improperly remunerated? This was further compounded by the Governments of 1951 to

  485
  1963, when the average pay for teachers fell far behind the general norm and people were driven, by sheer economic need, from the teaching profession, with the result that students and pupils were not given the benefit of the education facilities that were available. Until the Secretary of State recognises that a teacher is worthy of his hire and ought to be properly remunerated, our educational standards will continue to fall below those in Europe.
  Dr. Marek: My hon. Friend is basically right. I am not sure that I agree that our teachers are monkeys, but I am sure that he did not mean that.
  Mr. David Harris: Disgraceful.
  Dr. Marek: The hon. Gentleman who made that sedentary intervention can intervene or make a speech and I am sure that it will be interesting to hear what he had to say. I look forward to that.
  Mr. Chris Smith: I shall not interrupt any longer than necessary the flow of my hon. Friend's admirable speech. He is right to identify the information given by the Secretary of State in his press release about levels of remuneration upon which he is likely to insist if the Bill is passed. Does my hon. Friend agree that the central problem with the Bill is that, although the Secretary of State has said what he is likely to do in the immediate future, we have no information about what he is likely to do after that? The Bill proposes to give him wide-ranging powers and there is no information about teachers' remuneration in the years to 1990 and possibly beyond.
  Dr. Marek: My hon. Friend is right. This is basically an enabling Bill, which gives the Secretary of State total power. We have a hint of what will happen and I shall develop that in detail later. We can compare the two pay scales and make our own deductions about what is likely to happen.
  Mr. Nellist: Is my hon. Friend aware that since this debate started, Labour has apparently gained five points in the opinion polls? Does he think that the late arrival of the Prime Minister shows some panic on the Treasury Bench?
  Dr. Marek: I do not want to stray from the amendment, but the news about the opinion polls has cheered me up. We have been losing a few points recently and I am glad that we have got them back and a few more.
  Mr. Skinner: There could well be another reason why the Prime Minister is here. Perhaps she has been tipped off that the closure is about to be moved. I hope that is not the case, because I want to speak. I hope that her entrance does not mean that we will shortly have a vote, but I notice that the Tory Benches have filled rapidly in the last few minutes.
  Dr. Marek: Is my hon. Friend asking me to speed up?
  Mr. Skinner: No.
  Dr. Marek: I should like to return to the question of pay scales. The simple, straightforward main scales suggested in the ACAS agreement and those suggested by the Secretary of State are not at all the same. Of course, there are premium payments for teachers who take extra responsibilities and for teachers who do the job well, but
  486
  I object to a system in which that plays a large part in how we pay a profession. Instead of trying to do the job well, the way they want to do it, teachers will look to the headmaster to see if he will recommend them for promotion or if he will give them some other sort of recommendation which will enable them to get an increase based on merit.
  Mr. Bermingham: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way to me again. Does he accept that my earlier comment was the usage of an old phrase and in no way implied any disrespect for the teaching profession for which I have the greatest admiration? Does he agree that if we adopt a merit points system—[Interruption.] I hear the Secretary of State chattering. If he want to intervene he can do so. Leaving that aside, does my hon. Friend agree that a merit points system would tend to make teachers seek to please rather than seek to teach, which would be detrimental to the education system?
  Dr. Marek: My hon. Friend makes the point for me. That is a serious criticism that can be made of the Secretary of State's thinking, as far as he has gone, as set out in his press release in October. Surely we want a profession in which teachers are prepared to work extra hours if they feel that children need them to do so. We used to have a profession where that happened, and I am sorry to say that there has been a degeneration. That is because teachers are worried about the minutiae of conditions of service, employment and remuneration. This is sad, because the more time the profession spends worrying about such matters the less time it has to teach children. The more time it spends worrying about minutiae, the lower morale becomes.
  The profession worries about these matters only when it thinks that there is cause for concern, when it thinks that remuneration is not what it should be, or when it thinks that terms and conditions of employment are not quite right, and when things are not quite right, teachers worry and their morale sinks. One of my criticisms of the Government is that they have caused that to happen to teachers and to many others across the public sector.
  Mr. Corbyn rose—
  Mr. Boyes rose—
  Dr. Marek: I shall give way first to my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Washington.
  Mr. Boyes: My hon. Friend may not be aware that for about a dozen years I worked in schools. I found that many extremely well qualified teachers were working hard and being under-remunerated. Since 1979, when I became involved in full-time politics, no other group of workers has lobbied me more than teachers, and it is clear that teachers' morale is at an all-time low. They have been messed around by the Government over pay and conditions. They have been asked to work in buildings that are virtually falling down. The Government have not provided money to improve our schools. Moneys for materials and the financing of new schemes have been cut. Teachers are fed up to the back teeth. The Secretary of State is back in his place—
  Mr. Kenneth Baker: I have not been away.
  Mr. Boyes: The right hon. Gentleman was not in the Chamber when I reminded the House that he would not

  487
  allow elections to take place when he was abolishing the met counties and the GLC. It is clear that the Government do not like ballot-box democracy.
  Mr. Corbyn rose—
  Dr. Marek: I shall give way to my hon. Friend in a moment.
  I wish to make two serious points. First, we do not want a teaching profession that spends its time worrying about matters other than teaching. Secondly, we want a profession that has high morale.
  Mr. Corbyn: My hon. Friend is making an important and serious contribution. In speaking about the way in which teachers have to go about their work. His comments about their salaries and conditions of work are correct. Another serious problem is the condition of schools and the financing of education as a whole. This is not related exactly to clause 1 but it comes within the purview of conditions of work. There is an increasing involvement in financial administration and the social problems that come from the cuts—
  The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. This is a debate on the ACAS agreement and pay and not conditions in schools.
  Mr. Bermingham: On a point of order, Sir Paul. Is not the question of conditions in schools inextricably linked with teachers' conditions, as they cannot teach without such conditions being involved?
  The Second Deputy Chairman: I have made it clear that conditions in schools are out of order on this amendment.
  Mr. Bermingham: Further to that point of order—
  The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. I have given the hon. Gentleman a ruling and I hope that he will not dispute it.
  Dr. Marek: You are quite right, Sir Paul, in that the ACAS agreement relates mainly to remuneration, but it also refers to terms and conditions of service. I take it that in referring to remuneration, you included the additional aspects mentioned in the ACAS agreement.
  2 am
  Mr. Corbyn: Is my hon. Friend aware that many teachers are extremely concerned about the prospect of conditions of service agreement being vetoed and national conditions of service being imposed by the Secretary of State because of the inextricable link with public spending cuts on education, the way they affect the schools and the difficulties in which teachers are placed because of those cuts?
  Dr. Marek: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. Of course the morale is interrelated, and everything affects the way in which a teacher carries out his job.
  Mr. Boyes: I draw my hon. Friend's attention to paragraph 3.1.3(iii)(b) on page 3 of the ACAS agreement which deals with the contractual limitations on teachers' workload. It uses the phrase:
  "and improve in particular physical standards of provision".
  Surely my hon. Friend will agree that pay and conditions are relevant as they are included in the agreement, and I am absolutely sure that the phrase I have quoted opens the
  488
  debate to include conditions in schools. I shall ask my hon. Friend to give way again on this very point after he has developed his argument further.
  The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. I am quite sure that the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) will accept my ruling and will stick to the amendment.
  Dr. Marek: I do not intend to make a long speech, so I shall not reply to what my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Washington said. I hope that he catches the eye of the Chair later so that he can make his own speech and raise those points, which are pertinent to the extent that they are interrelated within the whole subject.
  There is a problem about the different amounts of money available and the difference between the cost of the two schemes. My hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North put forward a solution whereby the more expensive deal could be delayed by about two months so that the gap could be narrowed. Such a solution would be preferable to throwing away the ACAS agreement and relying on the Secretary of State's preferred scheme.
  In drawing up his scheme, did the right hon. Gentleman speak to any teacher representatives or to any teachers? He might have talked to the National Association of Head Teachers. It would have been better if he had explained why he preferred his scheme to the scheme worked out by ACAS. If he talked only to the Treasury, there cannot be that much difference between us. The Secretary of State should not then mind implementing the ACAS agreement, possibly delaying it a month or two.
  Mr. Bermingham: I am puzzled. How does my hon. Friend calculate a teacher's remuneration when the classroom is dripping? In my constituency some schools are cold because of heating problems and there is a shortage of books. How does one calculate rates of pay for teachers who have to work in such conditions, when for other teachers conditions are ideal? Working conditions must affect the knowledge that a teacher imparts.
  Dr. Marek: My hon. Friend is right. Environment has a bearing on performance. If the amendment were accepted and ACAS were able to dwell on such matters, we could take account of environment. I should like teachers to receive the same salary for the same job in conditions up to minimum standards. That is not possible at present, but that does not mean that it cannot happen in future. We should not be content with deteriorating buildings.
  It is not in the interests of children to have teachers whose promotion relies upon their being nice to their headmaster. Their teaching will be coloured by their wish for promotion and salary increases based on merit. We should regard teachers as professionals, capable of doing a job. If in some weeks they spend only 42 or 45 hours teaching, that should not matter because in other weeks they will willingly spend 50 or 52 hours teaching and think nothing of it. That used to happen, but it does not now.
  Mr. Boyes: I am at a disadvantage because of one of your rulings, Sir Paul. My hon. Friend is developing a critical and crucial argument. The final decision could hinge on his argument. I ask him to give way because I have an important point which will strengthen his already strong, powerful and convincing argument.
  I ask you, Sir Paul, to turn to page 15 of the ACAS agreement. Appendix 1(b) is entitled "The Contractual

  489
  Duties of Entry Grade Teachers". Paragraph 1.6 refers to "teaching and materials." I might be interrupting my hon. Friend during a vital part of his argument. I might already have spoiled the sweep of it for him. But I ask him to give way.
  I have researched the document carefully, because I have served on Committees under your chairmanship, Sir Paul, and I know that you are a fair and honest man who makes rulings with the best of intentions and after taking the best advice. I have found another reference to materials. Will you rule me out of order if, when my hon. Friend gives way, I ask him about this aspect of the ACAS agreement? It worries me greatly and it is of paramount importance.
  The Second Deputy Chairman: I will certainly not give a ruling on arguments that have not yet been advanced.
  Dr. Marek rose—
  Mr. Boyes: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Dr. Marek: In a moment. My hon. Friend makes a serious point and I hope that he will make a speech, because I should be interested to hear what he has to say.
  We need management in schools, as everywhere else, and none of us is asking for an anarchic system, though we should like more co-operation and consultation and we are certainly asking for a system of negotiation and consultation on remuneration and conditions of work. Clearly the day-to-day running of a school would not work if the head were regarded in the way that we regard the Secretary of State. That would be a recipe for disaster and would lower morale even more.
  Management and responsibility need to be rewarded, but it is anathema to me to give a management powers of patronage by allowing heads to give different pay increases to different teachers on the basis, at least partly, of the head's subjective view of merit. Most teachers would reject such a system.
  The last point that I wish to make in seeking to persuade the Committee to vote for—
  Mr. Boyes: My hon. Friend and I were trained in mathematical disciplines. A little while ago he mentioned the figure 19 and said that he would put on record the 19 points that the Secretary of State insisted on. Will my hon. Friend assure me that he will put those 19 points on record?
  Dr. Marek: Yes, I shall. The Minister said that the ACAS agreement was a ramshackle agreement, but nothing could be further from the truth. My hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) read out the subject headings of the ACAS agreement and hon. Members are, no doubt, familiar with them. I do not want to waste time by reading them out again.
  However, it would be appropriate for us to bear in mind the 19 points set out by the Secretary of State. The first was:
  "Plan, prepare, determine and review as necessary personal teaching methods and work programmes."
  That is included in the ACAS agreement. The second point was:
  "Teach and ensure the discipline and safety of assigned timetabled classes and groups, with the different educational needs of pupils in mind."
  The third point was:
  "Set, mark and record pupils' work."
  490
  All those matters are in the ACAS agreement. I cannot see why the Secretary of State should say that it was a ramshackle agreement. It was not.
  2.15 am
  The Minister's fourth point was:
  "Promote the general progress and welfare of a class or a group of pupils, and provide initial guidance or counselling on educational, social or career matters."
  The fifth point states:
  "Assess and record pupils' personal and social needs, development, progress and attainment; provide or contribute to oral or written assessments and reports on individuals and groups."
  Again, that is clearly spelt out in the ACAS agreement. There is certainly no sign of the ACAS agreement being ramshackle. In fact, the ACAS agreement contains many of those points in much more detail. From that point of view, it is to be recommended. The Committee should vote for the amendment.
  The Secretary of State's sixth point states:
  "Contribute to and participate in formal performance appraisal and review, team planning, self-evaluation, in-service training and professional development in assigned areas of the curriculum, and pastoral arrangements."
  The seventh point states:
  "Advise and co-operate with colleagues on teaching programmes, methods, equipment and materials within assigned areas of the curriculum."
  Again, that is spelt out in the ACAS agreement. Nothing in this agreement could be said to be ramshackle in any way. It is a pity that the Minister described the agreement in that way.
  The eighth point states:
  "Co-operate with appropriate specialist agencies and other appropriate outside bodies."
  The ninth point states:
  "Ensure the safety and good order of pupils by carrying out an appropriate share of supervision on pupils' arrival at and departure from school, on dispersal and assembly at the beginning and end of the midday break, whenever pupils are authorised to be on school premises—with the exception of the midday break — and elsewhere when pupils are the responsibility of the school."
  That is a rather long, tortuous paragraph, and it is not clear. The remainder of the paragraphs are short:
  "10. Consult and liaise with parents, attending meetings arranged for that purpose.
  11. Participate in staff meetings and activities."
  That is all in the ACAS agreement.
  Paragraph 12 states:
  "Undertake an appropriate share of the collective staff responsibility to substitue for an absent colleague when required, within limits as agreed."
  If hon. Members examine the ACAS agreement, which is part of the amendment, they will notice a detailed table about when teachers should and should not cover for absent colleagues and when supply teachers should be brought in. The ACAS agreement is far better on this point than the vague wording of the Secretary of State's press release.
  Mr. Clay: Is there anything in the Secretary of State's 19 points that is not in the 13 points? That seems to be the conclusion to which my hon. Friend is moving. In that case, I am puzzled. I understood that as a matter of comprehension, as it was called in my days at school, teachers skilfully teach pupils to be succinct, not to use too many words when few will do, and to subsume, under as few headings as possible, as much information and specific detail as possible. It seems that the Secretary of State has a nerve to make a list under 19 headings, when the

  491
  employers and teachers have managed to compile one under 13 headings. The Secretary of State says that he wants higher standards from teachers. He is not setting much of an example—
  Dr. Marek rose—
  Mr. Corbyn rose—
  Dr. Marek: Of course I shall give way, but I shall be ruled out of order if I give way too early.
  The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. I cannot allow an intervention within an intervention.
  Dr. Marek: To the best of my knowledge, I do not think that there is. If I am wrong on that point, I invite the Secretary of State to intervene and put the matter straight. I do not want the House to be misled in any way.
  Mr. Corbyn: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is only one Liberal Member in the Chamber? The Liberals have been leaving rapidly. Will he give way if the remaining Liberal wishes to make an intervention so that we can hear the Liberal party's point of view on this matter?
  Mr. Freud: On a point of order, Sir Paul. May I move that the question be now put?
  The Second Deputy Chairman: No.
  Dr. Marek: I am grateful to you, Sir Paul. I shall not delay the Committee much longer.
  The document continues:
  "13. Carry out an appropriate share of such administrative and organisational tasks as flow naturally from the above duties.
  14. Take part in arrangements for presenting pupils in public examinations, and contribute expertise to the preparation and development of courses of study and teaching materials in response to changes in public examinations and assessment procedures.
  15. Contribute as required to the appointment, induction, professional development and assessment of junior colleages, including new entrants to teaching.
  16. Co-ordinate the work of other teachers, as required, taking a leading professional role in the review, development and management of assigned curricular, pastoral or organisational activities.
  17. Supervise ancillary staff where designated to do so.
  18. Order and allocate appropriate equipment and materials.
  19. Carry out such other related duties and responsibilities at the school as may reasonably be allocated, as need arises,
  by the Head Teachers."
  Those are the Secretary of State's 19 points. I shall not, because I would trespass too far on the Committee's time, compare them in detail with the ACAS document. I have looked at the document, although perhaps not in sufficient detail to enable me to answer every question, especially to answer categorically the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Clay). I believe that the document covers all these points in much more detail.
  The Secretary of State may not like some of these points. I may not like some of them. I think that we could all offer different suggestions. But that is not the point of the argument. The Secretary of State should be in the general oversight and guiding role and leave the nitty gritty of the negotiations to the LEAs and to the teachers' organisations to sort out. Why does he concern himself so much with the little changes? Some of the changes that he wants to make will have disastrous effects. The remuneration change in particular means that teachers
  492
  would always have to look over their shoulders to see whether they were pleasing their head master, perhaps not following their best educational instinct. The problem will not be solved because of the Secretary of State's involvement in all these details or because he is giving himself blanket powers—[Interruption.] I hope that the Secretary of State is thinking about this. That point has been made often by Labour Members, and there has not been a decent answer from the Minister. Indeed, the Minister said that this was a "ramshackle" agreement.
  Mr. John Home Robertson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for putting these points on the record, particularly for the benefit of those of us who represent Scottish constituencies and who are not, therefore, involved in this extraordinary arrangement. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point about ACAS. Does he not think it odd that the Secretary of State for Education and Science for England and Wales has been so cavalier about ACAS? The position in Scotland is very different. We have the Scottish joint negotiating committee. Section 97B(3) of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 states:
  "Any such arrangements may include provision for the appointment of arbiters by the Advisory Conciliation and Arbitration Service for the purposes of any reference under this section."
  So ACAS is written into the statute that governs these matters in Scotland, yet the Secretary of State for England and Wales is excluding it totally.
  The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. The Bill deals with England and Wales only. I am sure that the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) will not be tempted to discuss the position in Scotland.
  Dr. Marek: You are right, Sir Paul. A small part of the Bill, towards the end, deals with the whole of the United Kingdom. But this part of the Bill deals only with England and Wales. I hear what my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) says. I only wish that the Secretary of State took account of existing practice elsewhere.
  This document has 21 closely typed pages and it deals with employers' responsibilities, safeguards, social priority allowances, salary issues, the duration of the agreement, contractual duties of entry grade teachers and the duties and responsibilities of head teachers. It is an extremely detailed and comprehensive document, and it is a great pity that no Government has said in detail why it could not be accepted. The Minister did not even give a reasoned political argument as to why the document should not be accepted. She said that it was a ramshackle agreement, but she did not delve into it too much. She dismissed it at the end of her speech as a ramshackle agreement—
  Dr. Norman A. Godman: The hon. Lady has a ramshackle mind.
  Dr. Marek: I shall not delve into that. We shall have to wait and see as the debate develops.
  Mr. Corbyn: Is my hon. Friend aware that, before the hon. Lady became a Member, she was prominent in local government associations? In that capacity, she reached many agreements with trade unions, and negotiated many agreements herself. Does she now repudiate the work of those local authority associations?
  Dr. Marek: My hon. Friend is right. That Minister has a local government background, as do I and my hon.

  493
  Friend. Agreements are never 100 per cent. right. They may be only 70, 80 or 90 per cent. right, but goodwill and much hard work went into drafting the agreement.
  Mr. Madden: On a point of order, Sir Paul. The hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Freud), the Liberal spokesman, has made three interventions in the debate so far. The first was to ask my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) for how long he was likely to speak; the second was to ask my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) whether he was making the speech that he should have made earlier; and the third was to move the closure on these amendments. Now he is reading a newspaper article about smoking. Is that in order?
  The Second Deputy Chairman: I shall assume that the hon. Gentleman is preparing himself for the debate.
  Mr. Madden: Further to that point of order, Sir Paul. The article that the hon. Gentleman is busily reading is about smoking. I cannot see how that bears on the amendment.
  The Second Deputy Chairman: Of course, it is not in order for hon. Members to read newspapers, but I intend to put a charitable interpretation on it. If the hon. Gentleman is reading something which has nothing to do with the debate, I am sure that he will desist.
  Mr. Skinner: Further to that point of order, Sir Paul. I have not been reading a newspaper for the past three and a half hours. I have been doing what you suggested the Liberal Member should do—preparing myself to take part in the debate. I have here a copy of the amendments, the Bill and the list of amendments that have been selected. Having prepared all this material, I wonder whether I shall have a chance to use it.
  The Second Deputy Chairman: If the hon. Gentleman looks, as he will have done, at the wide range of amendments that are available—
  Mr. Skinner: I want to speak on this debate—on industrial relations.
  The Second Deputy Chairman: —he should find opportunities.
  Dr. Marek: This is an important debate on the two amendments and the new clause, because there is still time for the Government to have second thoughts. Even if they cannot accept the amendment, they could say that there is some merit in involving ACAS in the deliberations over the remuneration of teachers.
  Dr. Godman: I hesitate to intervene as I represent a Scottish constituency, but I was educated in England at the Westbourne street boys' school in Hull. Is it not the case that, whether we are talking about teachers and local authority employers or about the Transport and General Workers Union and the National Dock Labour Board, there must almost always be a compromise in collective bargaining? Both sides of the negotiating table must make concessions. ACAS plays an important role in many areas of collective bargaining involving all kinds of employees and employers. Might not ACAS play a similarly valuable role in this area of collective bargaining as well?
  2.30 am
  Dr. Marek: My hon. Friend is right. That point has been made a number of times, but it loses nothing from having been made by my hon. Friend yet again. I live in hope that the more times we make it, one or two Conservative Members might realise that there is more than a grain of truth in what we are saying.
  Mr. Allen McKay: Is it not weird that we have a Government and a Minister who, not too long ago, decided for their own purposes to create a union which would have ACAS as one of its advisers, yet now they are taking away the same right from another body of people because it suits their purposes?
  Dr. Marek: My hon. Friend makes a pertinent point. The Government should resist their centralising tendency on this matter, as on many others. The country would be better for that. We would have a better education system and teaching profession if the Government were to show the country that they are prepared to let ACAS have a role, if nobody else, and that they will have a system which is impartial. seen to be impartial and which has a chance of obtaining mutual agreement between the two sides at the end of the day.
  The Minister might think that he is impartial and fair, but not many other people think that at the moment. I say with the deepest of respect that at the moment people do not think that, and the teaching profession certainly does not think that. The Minister has a chance to put the matter right by bringing ACAS in, and I hope that he will.
  Mr. Skinner: I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) raised the points of order about the Liberals. While I was meeting the teachers outside in the Lobby and some of my hon. Friends were speaking in the debate, I was not aware of what the Liberal and Social Democratic parties had been doing in the debate. I had to ask my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) what had happened. It should be put clearly on the record so that it gets outside that the Liberal party, even more so than the Tory party really, wanted to get the Bill faster than the Minister. The teachers should be told.
  The hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Freud) stood in his place when my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) was manfully putting his points across, and moved, That the question be now put. That is usually the tactic of a Minister.
  Dr. Godman: A Freudian slip.
  Mr. Skinner: I don't think it was.
  Mr. Freud: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point. I know that we are galloping on in the Bill, but there are some 18 more groups of amendments. We have tabled 18 amendments. [Interruption.] Quantity does not make up for quality. It is only fair to explain that the sooner this particular group of amendments is debated, the sooner will the Liberals' voice be heard and their amendments put.
  Mr. Skinner: The hon. Gentleman is now guilty of repetition. If he were appearing on "Just a Minute" he would be pulled up for repeating himself. He has said three times that the Liberal party wants to deal with these amendments. We have to show the teachers we met today in the Central Lobby that we mean business. My hon.

  495
  Friends have been honouring the pledges that they gave to the teachers. When I went out, Sir Paul, to meet the 600 or 700 people who were queueing to get into the building, they called upon us and on Tory Members of Parliament, if they could find them, to come into the Chamber and oppose by all legitimate means this dastardly measure that has been introduced by the Government. I do not know what Liberal Members of Parliament have been saying to the teachers.
  Mr. Fatchett: My hon. Friend did not have the benefit of attending the rally in Central Hall, Westminster, today, but Ann Sofer, speaking on behalf of the Social Democratic party and presumably also on behalf of the Liberal party, said that the alliance would fight the Bill at every possible opportunity. Does my hon. Friend consider that the behaviour of the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Freud) is consistent with the pledge that was given by his SDP colleague?
  Mr. Skinner: That puts the matter into proper perspective. A spokesperson told the rally what the Liberal party and the Social Democratic party intend to do, but after the rally Dr. Death had a word with them and said, "Now be careful. There are some right-wing parents in the south who want the Secretary of State for Education and Science to wield the big stick. Don't get up to any hanky-panky. Tell the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East to keep his trap shut, apart from trying to move the closure at every possible opportunity." It shows once again the two-faced nature of the Liberal party and the Social Democratic party.
  Mr. Madden: This is most revealing. My hon. Friend will recall that the alliance has made a lot of fuss in the Chamber. It has demanded more rights and more opportunities to speak. Microphones have been moved. Does my hon. Friend not think that it is important that those outside should know that the SDP half of the alliance has been completely absent throughout the Committee stage, which started at just after 4 pm. It is now 2.38 am. Apart from some very brief appearances by the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock), the SDP has been totally absent, leaving the almost mute spokesman for the Liberal party to carry these onerous responsibilities, although his only contribution so far has been to try to move the closure.
  Mr. Skinner: I am pleased that my hon. Friend has referred to the public address equipment and to the microphones in this place. A special microphone was installed for the Liberals, no doubt to help them to take part in all-night sittings. It is a pity that they are not using it. I notice that another microphone has been installed on the other side of the Chamber. I believe that it has been put in for the leader of the Social Democratic party when he crosses the Floor of the House.
  Mr. Harris: If the hon. Gentleman casts his mind back, he will remember that he and I protested about the installation of this microphone. I said that I did not need it, and jointly we said that we did not think that the leader of the Liberal party needed his, either.
  Mr. Skinner: As I told the right hon. Gentleman at the time — he did not believe me then — I am pretty convinced what it is for. No doubt he will finally make his way across the Floor, and Liberals such as the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East will stew in their
  496
  own juice. That is what the SDP leaders are about. They want to use people so that they can run the show. They tried to run the Labour party—I am just leaving this point, Sir Paul—and because they could not, they left, without a ballot, and they are now dominating the Liberals. That is why "Spitting Image" has got it dead right when it shows David Steel in David Owen's pocket.
  The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is reaching the end of his preamble and is about to come to the amendment.
  Mr. Skinner: I was distracted. I am trying to keep to the point, although I did not see the Serjeant at Arms' point, irrespective of what the Wapping press had to say. The Division took only 14 minutes, which is par for the course. The Chairman of Ways and Means was upset about that because one of the members of the Wapping press said that he was in the Chair when, as you know, Sir Paul, you were in the Chair—
  The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is now straying into something else that has nothing to do with the amendment.
  Mr. Skinner: I happened to mention it to the teachers outside. As they were still queuing, complaining about the fact that the ACAS agreement had been withdrawn by the Secretary of State, they were crestfallen because they could not find any Tory Members of Parliament or for that matter any Liberals to help them fight the Bill. I thought that I would tell them a few amusing stories about the palace of varieties to pass the time. I told them what the Labour party was doing, and I am certain that they felt pleased that on this occasion the Labour party, unlike the Liberals and the SDP, would be coming here today to use all legitimate parliamentary means to frustrate the Bill. That is important. That has been lacking in this Parliament. Nothing pleased me more than to hear my colleague the hon. Member for Jarrow and others like him in the Whips Office wanting to make sure that we fight in a more consistent fashion against some of these obnoxious pieces of legislation. We have found one here. It will strike a chord outside. Many people listening to the 9 o'clock or 10 o'clock news will be pleased to know that the Labour party is fighting the Bill line by line.
  I hope that in the next set of amendments dealing with further education, some of my hon. Friends will deal with this matter—it is just a thought to pass on. In every textbook about politics, one reads about the way that one can use Parliament. One of the ways is to occupy time. The Opposition cannot do any more than that.
  Mr. Corbyn rose—
  Mr. Skinner: At this point, my hon. Friend wants to occupy time.
  Mr. Corbyn: Does not my hon. Friend think that ACAS could be put to good use in liaising between the Liberals and the Social Democrats, or perhaps investigating exactly what attitude Liberal and SDP-controlled or led local authorities have taken towards the teachers' pay dispute, the argument over salaries and conditions and indeed, this piece of legislation? As there is silence from the Liberals and the SDP tonight on the matter — they are absent — there is a need for someone to tell us exactly where those two parties stand. Perhaps there are differing points of view beyond those two. Perhaps there are differing points of view beyond those two. There might be

  497
  two in Parliament, two outside or 200 outside. Or they might not have a clue and have no option to offer anybody.
  Mr. Skinner: In fact, it was summed up in a previous debate about the teacher's dispute when there was a strike taking place in various schools up and down the country. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) will remember. He took part in that debate and I listened. The hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East, the education spokesman for the Liberal party, decided to make a speech on that occasion. He did not manage to get round to ACAS because I do not think that he thought for one moment that that was where it would finish up. In a nutshell what he said—my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough will confim this—was that he was on the side of the teachers and on the side of the Government at the same time. I think that that adequately sums up the position of the alliance. In almost every contentious issue the Liberal party and the Social Democratic party back every horse that is running in the race.
  2.45 am
  Dr. Godman: Surely the reason for the stunning silence of members of the Liberal party and the Social Democratic party is their ignorance of industrial relations and collective bargaining. I would have thought that the essential thrust of the amendment is the role offered to ACAS. It seems, perhaps my hon. Friend will agree, that the employers and the trade unions would surely benefit from the guiding role performed by the experts in collective bargaining. The importance of the amendment is the role being offered to ACAS and, in turn, offered to both employers' and employees' representatives in these difficult and trying circumstances.
  Mr. Skinner: That is a worthy point. One of the planks of Liberalism as I used to know it before I became a Member of the House was based upon the least Government interference in any situation. That is what Liberalism is all about. The Liberal party said at its conference this year as it has in previous years, that it believes in less Government intervention and in bodies dealing with industrial relations matters. Therefore, one would have thought that the alliance spokesman would have come here today and applauded the fact that ACAS got round the table and managed to come up with a 19-point resolution of the problem. [HON. MEMBERS: "13 points."] I heard my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) referring to 19, but I will accept 13. When I was outside today—
  Mr. Freud: I would simply like to point out that it was the Liberal party and the Social Democratic party that tabled a reasoned amendment on Second Reading. That amendment was supported by the Labour party. To date, we have reached clause 1, page 1, line 5 and it ill becomes anyone to criticise one for silence when we have so far, in nine and a half hours of debate, covered five lines.
  Mr. Skinner: The hon. Gentleman does not understand—he has been here many years—that it is the duty of the Opposition to frustrate a Bill that they deem to be wrong for the people to whom it applies and that
  498
  everything that has happened today has been in order. The hon. Gentleman is suggesting that certain contributions have been out of order.
  Mr. Freud: I am not.
  Mr. Skinner: I do not know what the hon. Gentleman is saying, then. That is a reflection on the Chair. The Chair is dealing with the debate. At some later stage I might not be happy about the closure motions that are put and accepted by the Chair but, at this stage and after these hours when my hon. Friends have been speaking within the order of the House, I believe that they are doing a job that has to be done and that they are carrying out the promises they made to all the teachers outside. My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) wants to make a valuable contribution.
  Mr. Nellist: Before my hon. Friend was sidetracked by the almost unique intervention of the Liberal spokesman, he was answering a point from my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman). I hope that he will continue with that. In recent months, my hon. Friend and I have had the benefit of discussions with a former ACAS chairman, Mr. Jim Mortimer, who is now doing other things. Mr. Mortimer had certain views about his experience with ACAS and about the anti-trade union laws brought in by the Government in the past seven years. This is one of the few occasions when we can get to grips with those matters. Members who were not present for those discussions may benefit from some of the points that were made.
  Mr. Skinner: Jim Mortimer had a somewhat chequered career, finishing up as general secretary of the Labour party. I shall not go into the pros and cons of that, because at that time he had nothing to do with ACAS. Nevertheless, he gained valuable experience with ACAS. I do not wish to offend my hon. Friend, but I have not exactly fallen in love with ACAS. It is as well to make that clear now. That is not to say, however, that ACAS could not achieve a more reasonable settlement than the Government on some occasions. That is what we are saying today. We speak from a position of strength when we say that although ACAS has done a bit of meddling in its time and sometimes come down on the side of the employers, and notwithstanding its somewhat Establishment make-up, it has still managed to make some sensible arrangements in difficult circumstances when there was a multitude of unions which somehow could not get their act together until the settlement was finally agreed.
  Mr. Corbyn: I have a good deal of sympathy with my hon. Friend's comments about ACAS, but does he agree that one of its advantages is that the terms of its establishment mean that it is bound to promote collective bargaining on both sides and thus supports the principle of trade union organisation? The present Secretary of State is bitterly opposed to the very existence of trade unions. That is why a considerable number of trade unionists are in prison in this country for defying the legislation that the Secretary of State supports.
  Mr. Skinner: I assume that my hon. Friend is referring to people like Terry French, or Mike Hicks, who was arrested on the Wapping picket line. That is part of the Government's policy. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Clay) has said, it is a bizarre state

  499
  of affairs when the Government say that they wish to interfere with free collective bargaining, to have nothing to do with the ACAS agreement and to impose their settlement on the unions and especially the NUT whether they like it or not, when that very Government were elected on a mandate of non-interference.
  Just before the 1979 general election, the Conservatives took part in a debate in the House about the Ford settlement, which was 17 per cent. The then Tory Opposition claimed that there should be no interference between Ford and its employees. My hon. Friends on the Front Bench will recall the forthright statements of the Tories on that occasion that we should not interfere in the Ford settlement. They put down a motion about it with the intention of embarrassing the Labour Government and setting the theme for the election of a Tory Government who could then claim in their election campaign that they were all for free collective bargaining. There were to be no incomes polices of the Liberal or SDP kind. There were to be no £6 or 10 per cent. pay policies. The ethos of their campaign was that, as a result of the Ford debate, when they were elected, there would be no interference. That is what happened for a long time.
  Dr. Godman: The references to Liberal Members' contribution is something of an irrelevance, because they are an irrelevance in a debate about industrial relations and collective bargaining in England and Wales. I can understand my hon. Friend's suspicions, or even cynical, view of ACAS, but surely he agrees that it has played an important role in bringing about a peaceful resolution of several industrial conflicts. It does not always play to the establishment in collective bargaining. Sometimes, ACAS has nobly defended the interests of trade unionists who were powerless.
  Mr. Skinner: My attitude to ACAS is coloured by what happened in the miners' strike. It had ample opportunities to find some form of settlement. I believe that the Government told ACAS what the score was and that they and MacGregor intervened and stopped ACAS, which was probably trying to find a solution or a halfway point. Because of the umbilical cord between the Government, some of the establishment, such as MacGregor, and ACAS, the Government were able to force their way and get the settlement that we have today.
  I hazard a guess that ACAS has probably grown a bit since then and that, in regard to the teachers, it thought, "Here is an industrial problem. The teachers have been on strike on and off for about 18 months. It is not like the teachers to take industrial action"—[Laughter.] Oh, no. I visit most picket lines, and during my 30-odd years on the political scene I have not had to visit many teachers' picket lines until recently.
  I believe that ACAS might have thought, "This is a bit different. Perhaps the Government have gone one step too far." Nobody is impartial, but looking at the problem from a more objective point of view, ACAS might have thought, "We must stand firm and come up with a resolution."
  Mr. Corbyn: What my hon. Friend is saying about teachers becoming more aware of their situation is important. In the 1979 low pay dispute, the participation of teachers in support of manual workers in schools was minimal in many places—but not any more.
  500
  Does my hon. Friend agree that often, when local authorities reach agreement, the Government pull the money out from under the employer? That is true of the nurses' pay claim, which has not been properly funded, and of the local authority manual workers' claims. The Government operate double standards. They say that they are not interfering in collective bargaining, but they pull the strings from a distance to drive real wages down.
  Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend is making the point that I heard earlier, that this is the thin end of the wedge, and the Government have decided that ACAS has come up with a resolution of a problem, and they do not like or want it because it places them in a predicament. It could be that the Government are saying, "Well, it happened to be the teachers, but it doesn't matter what it is—ACAS may come up with some other settlement, such as that for the nurses before the general election, and we might find that unpalatable." It could be that the Government have decided that ACAS deliberations cannot be accepted despite the fact that they could resolve the problem.
  3 am
  Dr. Godman: I point out to my hon. Friend that I said that I shared some of his suspicions about ACAS. However, he should remember that it is not some kind of mediating body that seeks to bring together two forces that are equally powerful. I would have thought that in any analysis of industrial relations in the United Kingdom, it is almost always the case irrespective of the industry, that the employer possesses much more power than organised labour, and despite what this doltish lot say about dockers and others, that is the case for just about every industry, including education.
  Mr. Skinner: That is a fair point, and that is why we are here at three o'clock in the morning, addressing the position of teachers, and redressing the balance by calling on the Government to accept the amendment. We have spent some time discussing ACAS. We must try to influence the Government into accepting its role.
  Today, I was talking to some teachers who had come here to lobby. They could not get in, but I managed to find a way to bring them in so that they could lobby Tory Members of Parliament. They were able to find Labour Members of Parliament to talk about ACAS and the amendments. One of them asked me, "Do you know where Parkinson is?" He obviously meant the right hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Parkinson). I said, "Probably not, because he has got 10 jobs." They could not believe me. I had to get the Register of Members' Interests from the Vote Office to show them. I thought that I did the right and proper thing by letting them have a copy for research and analysis.
  One of them asked whether the right hon. Gentleman needed the money, but I do not know about that. They could not find the right hon. Member for Hertsmere, but I helped them by going through the list and telling them who was a Tory Member, because it does not signify whether they are Labour or Tory or sky blue or pink. They spent their time putting in green cards, which is an important function of this place, especially on a day like today. They referred to the Secretary of State, and they were livid that they could not see him. They sent a message through his Parliamentary Private Secretary, but they did not see the Secretary of State.

  501
  These people were worried about the "Weekend World" programme, on which the Secretary of State appeared. Another Tory Minister appearing on another Tory programme. It is run by a Tory, Matthew Parris. It used to be run by another Tory who has now left the country and is living on much more than a teacher's wage somewhere in the Channel Islands.
  The teachers said it was high time that somebody put the alternative point of view. I told them that a host of my hon. Friends were in the Chamber ready to explain the teachers' case when speaking to various amendments, including the one about ACAS. The teachers were pleased at that, even though we did not get the chance to appear on "Weekend World" and put their case. On that programme Matthew Parris plays pat ball. Many hon. Members are interviewed on television and worry about what the last question will be. We think somebody will drop us a cobbler. Tory Ministers, such as the Secretary of State for Education and Science, appear on that programme and for them it is like Christmas Day, Boxing Day and a birthday rolled into one. They cannot fail. If you, Sir Paul, ever get a chance to appear on that programme to talk about ACAS, ask for Matthew Parris and it will be a doddle.
  The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. This may be interesting, but I cannot relate it to the amendment.
  Mr. Skinner: If you get the chance, Sir Paul, to talk about the way you keep order in the Committee and if you are worried about whether you will be interviewed by Sir Robin Day or somebody who might put a few trick questions, settle for "Weekend World".
  Mr. Jeremy Hanley: Kilroy-Silk?
  Mr. Skinner: The hon. Gentleman mentions Kilroy-Silk. There might yet be a debate on the programme about ACAS, and it will probably be about the teachers, who knows? The viewing figures are terrible. There are fewer people watching that programme than there are hon. Members present in the Chamber. I do not know what will happen to Matthew Parris and I hope that no one can detect a smile on my face. He will probably have to ask ACAS to sort it out when he is threatened with the sack, but he will hardly get an all-night sitting on his behalf.
  The teachers that I met were huddled in corners in the Lobbies trying to contact various hon. Members. I met them after they had met various people and they were overwhelmed with the support that they had from Labour Members. [Interruption.] It is not always the case. I explained to them that for the first time in a long time we would use legitimate parliamentary tactics to try to frustrate this piece of legislation.
  There has been a poll since we started this debate and we have already narrowed the gap. There has been a five-point improvement since the debate began. My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow will agree that the ACAS agreement was a good one.
  In some respects, my hon. Friend and I have different views about ACAS, but we do not need to go through that again. Perhaps we do. From the speeches that I have heard in the debate, that agreement favours the lower paid more than the higher paid. That is an egalitarian agreement and must be supported.
  502
  The discussions took several days and the people who took part in them are to be commended. In spite of the pressures from some of the small teacher unions that represent the headmasters and people like that—the people mainly associated with the Tories—the discussions ended in proposals which shifted the balance in favour of teachers coming in at the lower end of the scale, and especially teachers who have to teach in dilapidated schools. To some degree, but not entirely, that must be a factor in favour of the settlement.
  Mr. Edward Rowlands: My hon. Friend has referred to Tory headmasters. The representations that I received today from Merthyr and Rhymney were from headmasters who are not Tories.
  Mr. Skinner: That is even better. What will the next poll show? We are not here by accident; we are not here on a fool's errand. We are taking part in the debate because we know that the Bill is an injustice. Not all my hon. Friends who are in the Chamber come from the teaching profession. Many of us left school a long time ago, but we feel that the Tory Government are up to something that is wrong. That is why my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney is able to say, quite properly, that he has met headmasters who are not Tories. Perhaps some were Tories, but they have come to the conclusion that the ball has to stop now.
  Mr. Alen McKay: My hon. Friend has spoken of fear and unease about the Bill. Some of us are thinking—this should be the thinking of those outside the House—that the Bill is the beginning of a scheme that the Tories have to mount a further attack upon the working class across the board. The Bill is the first of a series of measures to that end.
  Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend is on the right lines. I would merely say that the Bill is not the first measure to attack the working class. The Tory Government have taken on a long list of workers over the past seven years. The teachers have acted spendidly in their own defence for 18 months and they are almost at the end of the line. They are probably the first of what we call, loosely, the professionals who have been tackled. I advise anyone who is a member of the National and Local Government Officers Association and thinking of voting Tory at the next election to watch out. He should understand that he is next in line. The Government have taken on some badly organised groups of manual workers and now they are taking on the teaching profession. The teachers are the thin end of the wedge. The Government will say, "We have dusted down the teachers and told ACAS to get lost. We can now move into another area," and who knows where it will end?
  Mr. Bill Michie: We know that some teachers voted Tory in 1983, and I spoke to two or three this afternoon who did that. When they did so they never believed that a Tory Government would remove their union's negotiating rights. The teachers who voted Tory in 1983 for short-term, selfish reasons have learnt their lesson. They will not make the same mistake at the next general election.
  Mr. Skinner: I have no doubt that we have reached watershed. I know that that word is over-used, but we are speaking about workers who, by and large, have not been involved in industrial disputes. That was the position until

  503
  the Government were elected. I am sure that other groups, such as those that are represented by the National and Local Government Officers Association will be concerned, and we must use the debate subsequently to spread the message among other groups. We must explain that if the Government are prepared to rush this Bill through Parliament with their 160-odd majority, even though there is no need to do so, that spells disaster for many other workers. Perhaps one day they will get around to the solicitors.
  3.15 am
  Mr. Boyes: Exactly how many people are in NALGO? There are many votes to be had, and many of those people have already experienced one hard lesson. I apologise for referring to it again, but I feel so bitter about the way in which the Government treated the metropolitan counties and the GLC. Those bodies never got the chance of going to ACAS or of going to the ballot box and their employees lost their jobs. My hon. Friend raises an important point, because NALGO is watching the teachers very carefully. Does my hon. Friend realise that more than 1·5 million people belong to NALGO and that every one of them will see this Bill as a party political—
  The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. It is not in order to discuss NALGO on this amendment.
  Mr. Boyes rose—
  The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. I call the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner).
  Mr. Skinner: The last thing we want to do is fall out with the Chair. That can be done on many other occasions. Although we may lose the vote, there is no point in infuriating Sir Paul when we are winning the argument. He has deemed that everything up to now has been in order—
  Mr. Boyes: On a point of order, Sir Paul. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has so touched me that I believe I might have offended you. I apologise for having strayed.
  Mr. Skinner: There is no need to crawl.
  Mr. Boyes: I had no intention of straying. But my hon. Friend has convinced me that it is necessary to apologise. I hope that you will accept my apology for straying outside the terms of the amendment. I should not have referred to NALGO or the abolition of the metropolitan counties and the GLC with the consequent job losses for NALGO members without recourse to ACAS. I assure you, Sir Paul, that I shall not do it again on this amendment.
  The Second Deputy Chairman: I am very much obliged to the hon. Gentleman. I can assure him that he has not offended me. However, it is my job to ensure that the debate is in order. It is a wide debate, but I am being very tolerant as I recognise the important issues and the strength of feeling on them. We must, however, stay within the rules.
  Mr. Skinner: One could say of your response to my hon. Friend's contribution, Sir Paul, that you have spoken just like ACAS and have come up with the solution.
  Dr. Godman: I appreciate that there are some differences in our perceptions of ACAS, ACAS officials and the functions that they perform in collective
  504
  bargaining. If the amendment were carried, ACAS officials would be able to provide a most useful function in collective bargaining on terms and conditions of employment without playing a direct interventionist role. In my view, ACAS could play an important educational role in industrial relations training. Many in the teaching profession had little or no experience of collective bargaining and had not been involved in industrial disputes until recently. ACAS might have an important educational role.
  Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend knows a lot about ACAS. That is becoming apparent. My hon. Friend could make a valuable contribution to this debate. To be serious, in all his interventions my hon. Friend has tried to probe, to find out and to explain precisely the role of ACAS. That is why I am convinced that our debate on these amendments should not go by without a contribution from my hon. Friend.
  On training, the Government are very unsure of their ground. They are not keen on training anybody, apart from Parliamentary Private Secretaries. There have been plenty of them. One is now asleep. Is it in order, Sir Paul, for a Parliamentary Private Secretary to be fast asleep? There is a limit. I see that the hon. Gentleman has taken out the matchsticks but it is coming to something when such lack of interest is shown.
  The Government have a majority of 160 on paper — they did not have that majority in the last Division. The Government majority then dropped by about 100, and that says something else. People close to the Minister treat the House with comtempt when they think, "Let's get on with the vote. We shall win the vote. We don't care about the teachers. We don't make contributions apart from brief ones by the Minister."
  Dr. Godman: I should like to ask a supplementary question about the training role of ACAS. I try to be a fair-minded, constructive critic of Tory Ministers, but it is fair to say that in terms of industrial relations training, earlier Tory Governments encouraged—albeit adventitiously—the development of industrial training.
  The Industrial Relations Act 1971 came into force on 28 February 1972 long before I entered the House. That Act, with its industrial relations code which was approved eventually by ACAS, encouraged the development of training. I say that from experience because I was involved in the training of shop stewards and managers at Scottish and Newcastle Breweries. ACAS was involved. If the amendment were carried it would give a major impetus to the able work performed by ACAS. I say that despite criticisms by some of the hon. Friends. That was the point that I was trying to make.
  Mr. Skinner: I am not opposed to the evolution of ACAS. Nothing is static and if I said — was it adventitiously?—a few moments ago that I was not too keen on ACAS generally, that is because I was coloured by its attitude during the strike. Is the word "adventitious" in order, Sir Paul? Is it mentioned in "Erskine May"?
  As ACAS is evolving—my hon. Friend knows so much about ACAS that he must have been watching it evolve; it is almost as if he can see it grow. He could get a job there. Don't get me wrong. Some people come here and end up as bookies' runners, but my hon. Friend has

  505
  shown some expertise about this ACAS institution and that has been helpful to all of us. It has been a sort of educational experience for some of us.
  Mr. Dixon: ACAS night classes.
  Mr. Skinner: Well, I am not sure that ACAS would call them night classes. It has probably got something to do with my background, but I have a feeling that ACAS would call them seminars. That is what worries me. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow is with me on that. I think that he has been with me all the way. He has not said a deal, but I keep looking at his face to make sure that we are on the same wavelength on this ACAS business. That shows the broad expanse in our party.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) and I take an arm's-length position on ACAS, while accepting what it has done on this issue, and the Labour party also accommodates my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow who has studied ACAS, not only in relation to this matter, but in a wider form. He has been able to show the rest of us that it has possibilities. My hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow and I will watch this growth under the next Labour Government, because ACAS could get a little too close to the Establishment.
  Dr. Godman: I should be grateful if my hon. Friend refrained from calling me an expert on ACAS. I suspect all experts and I am an observer.
  Mr. Skinner: A better word.
  Dr. Goodman: Yes, a much better word. I should like my hon. Friend to take on board the fact that if the amendment were passed—there is some doubt about that, because of the lumpen bourgeoisie on the Government Benches—the procedures established with the intervention of ACAS would force on employers and employees' associations training needs which would have to be met with sensible and realistic programmes for the training of trade union representatives. In a diffuse sense, ACAS has a training role to play in this area of collective bargaining.
  Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend has put the matter in a better perspective. It was wrong of me to presume that, because he knew so much about ACAS, he was an expert. We do not always get hon. Members to acknowledge that they are not experts. Most people would jump at the chance to hear somebody call them an expert. My hon. Friend is modest.
  Mr. Corbyn: My hon. Friend should look behind him.
  3.30 am
  Mr. Skinner: I do not think that the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) is the only one. He purports to be an expert on the law. One of my hon. Friends says that he is not, but I shall not go into that matter because it may open another can of worms. It may lead us to that Wright fellow in Sydney. I do not know whether ACAS could resolve that problem.
  Would not things look up if this amendment were carried? Imagine what prospects would open for these people—ACAS, supported by my hon. Friend, as he observes them. They could then muscle in on all sorts of things. Not that I wish to see the Government rescued in respect of their spies and all the rest of it. We know where
  506
  the spies come from, anyway. They come out of the belly of the Establishment. They have not caught a shop steward yet. The newspapers always suggest that the spies come from the Left, or ACAS. Most of them seem to come from public schools. That counteracts what ACAS has done. Perhaps my hon. Friend and others have forgotten that we have got to the kernel of the matter—the lowly paid.
  I hope that hon. Members do not get me wrong on this point. I do not wish to be misunderstood. I do not wish to be misquoted, either, in future when there is a Labour Government. I am pleased that the Government have been multi-egalitarian in the way that they have distributed the available money. It is a type of harbinger for an incomes policy. Although ACAS has come up with this solution, I should not want anybody to get the impression that somebody from outside could tell NUPE laundry cleaners—people who are lower paid—that the only way to get a decent wage increase is to finish up at ACAS with this posh body. Although the collective bargaining procedures go to ACAS, we would rather see those people collectively bargain together — more joining NUPE, the General Municipal and the other unions that cover those trades — to try to get better wages. In that way, the two functions could operate together.
  Dr. Godman: It must be noted that the amendment states:
  "under the auspices of the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service between representatives of the local education authorities and of the teachers' unions."
  During the evolution of ACAS, over 10 years, it might be possible to give it additional powers that will enable it to redress, change or counteract the imbalance in power that exists between employers' organisations and employees' associations.
  Mr. Skinner: So long as we understand that, as in this case, ACAS is free from any Government interference. The debate is about a Government who are imposing a settlement. In forthright terms, we do not want to see that development. We have had a conflict between the Government, who hold the purse strings, and the teachers' unions. As a result, they have found a way to ACAS. That is OK by me. That is a fairly sensible conclusion. We hesitate about the fact that, in future, ACAS might intervene in an area where it is not altogether welcome. That is a worthy matter to put on record as we utilise the arguments about ACAS. That prompted the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East to start writing.
  Mr. Boyes: He is doodling.
  Mr. Skinner: He is probably practising for his next radio programme.
  The essence of the low pay argument is good in itself. Today, I heard the views of some teachers. They said, "Whatever you do, Dennis, you tell Harold Walker this, if he gets into the Chair." I said "He will, because he is always there. He will be there. He is the sort of Chairman who understands the issues — not that he can be anything other than impartial." He is not one to stop my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow from making a valuable contribution about the role of ACAS, as he has observed it over the years.
  Mr. Dixon: Not during the miners' strike.
  Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow observed it then. During the strike, ACAS was picked out

  507
  by the Government. Obviously, there were some ACAS personnel who were made of the right stuff to stand up to MacGregor and the Government. As I said earlier—my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow might not have been listening closely—those people believe that the teachers have been given such a raw deal that they have to assert themselves against the Government. This is because of the outrageous way in which the Government dealt with the teachers after they had lost so much money.
  Mr. Dixon rose—
  Mr. Skinner: I have been trying to get my hon. Friend to intervene.
  Mr. Dixon: I have not intervened because I have a cold and can hardly talk. I agree with my hon. Friend's point about ACAS during the miners' strike. But we do not want to get carried away with ACAS. During the period I was involved in the trade union movement, I always considered that going to ACAS was like having a row with the wife and getting the mother-in-law to arbitrate.
  Mr. Skinner: We have been discussing ACAS, completely in order, for about an hour, Mr. Walker, and I have been struggling to approach the matter in an academic fashion in order to fit in with my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow. I should not have done that. I should have resorted to my instincts. There, in a nutshell, is what I have been trying to say. The debate could have finished early. In some ways, our legitimate parliamentary tactics could have been frustrated if the throat of my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow had not been so sore. He could have jumped in straight away.
  Mr. Dixon: I would not have moved the closure.
  Mr. Skinner: You missed the best part, Mr. Walker, when the Liberals decided to speak for the first time today. They wanted to move, That the Question be now put. That caused a certain amount of hilarity, as you can guess, Sir — not that we should be totally amused about this debate.
  Mr. Bermingham rose—
  Mr. Skinner: No, we should not be continuously amused about the debate, because my hon. Friend is now going to make a legal point.
  Mr. Bermingham: Does my hon. Friend agree that—now that we have had the mother-in-law join the mother and the wife, now that we have had the Liberals' retreat and now that we have had all the academics—the Secretary of State, in seeking to pour scorn on ACAS, shows his complete contempt for anyone who seeks to disagree with him?
  Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friends will have heard that, in a quiet unassuming fashion, How my hon. Friend from ferret land has intervened, only a second after my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow. The contrast! I talked about how this party embraces people who know ACAS inside out, people who do not trust ACAS and people who go to court about ACAS; yet here we are—and this is the significant point—all on the same side because we know that injustice is being carried out by the Government against the teachers.
  Mr. Rowlands rose—
  Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend who comes from Wales wants to contribute.
  Mr. Rowlands: I have been pondering my hon. Friend's comment a few minutes ago that all headmasters are Tories. I want him to withdraw the absurd slur that he has made on the many headmasters who are anything but Tories. Will he do that for me?
  Mr. Skinner: I thought I had done it in a commendable fashion. I said earlier that we had all met people from the Lobby, and I said, off-the-cuff, that one headmasters' organisation, about which I had been reading in the newspapers, was supporting the Government. I might inadvertently have given the impression that I thought all headmasters were Tories. I am not sure about it. It is pretty clear that the headmasters are coming over to our side, and that is a good thing. So there is no doubt that—
  Mr. Rowlands: Will my hon. Friend withdraw?
  Mr. Skinner: No, I will not withdraw anything. No one has made me do it in 16 years, and I am not starting tonight. I have made considerable concessions tonight, but my hon. Friend should not ask me to travel down that road.
  Mr. Godman rose—
  Mr. Skinner: I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for ACAS.
  Dr. Godman: Looking at the role that is envisaged for ACAS in the agreement, may I point out to my hon. Friend that I am not an uncritical admirer of ACAS? I approach ACAS in a fair-minded and constructive way. We must acknowledge that, in some instances, ACAS has defended the interests of workers who are badly organised. I remind my hon. Friend that if the amendment were passed and if ACAS were to play this role in collective bargaining in education, it might encourage the House to look afresh at ACAS and to give it greater powers. Those powers would have to be based on the premise that, in almost every case, the organised work force is less powerful than the employers. May I make one further point? I never thought that I would end up as my hon. Friend's straight man.
  Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend has been making valuable contributions. He said that he was not an uncritical admirer of ACAS. It has all gelled at the end, has it not? As we come towards the end, a couple of us on this Bench are not quite in love with ACAS. My hon. Friend gave the impression initially that he was an expert—
  Dr. Godman: An observer.
  Mr. Skinner: He is an observer. Now he is not an uncritical admirer on occasions—
  Mr. Flannery: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Skinner: I will when I have made this point, which is important. I do not wish to impugn the name of the Chair, Mr. Walker, and I do not say that we should have a minute's silence, but we should remember that you set it up and that you have played a valuable role—
  Dr. Godman: I do not seek to curry favour with you, Mr. Walker.
  Mr. Skinner: I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery), who has not been in the Chamber lately, but who spoke earlier.
  Mr. Flannery: I am disconcerted about my hon. Friend's difficulties with this group of Welsh headmasters.

  509
  May we enlist the good offices of ACAS to help him with this problem group who, although we are assured that they are solid Labour supporters, belong to an organisation that has been acting like a bunch of Tories? I refer to the National Association of Head Teachers. Could ACAS help him out of the dilemma?
  Mr. Skinner: Looking at it objectively, as an observer, during the past week or two, I got the impression that that organisation was causing some trouble for ACAS. As my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) said, there are some Labour supporters in that organisation, but the body itself exudes a sort of bluish dye. It has frustrated to some extent the attempts made by the bulk of the unions, including the National Union of Teachers, to obtain this important settlement.
  Mr. Nellist: My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) talked about ACAS having to conciliate between employers and employees, particularly when the employees were in the weaker position. I hope that my hon. Friend will explain that in virtually every case the latent strength of workers, who are the only ones who produce wealth in society, is not fully realised, and that is where the trade unionism comes to the fore.
  3.45 am
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is well into his second hour on amendment No. 4 and since we have had a change of Chair, will he recap on some of his earlier points, at least for the benefit of Mr. Walker?
  Mr. Skinner: I do not have to recap. I can give a summary. I shall only point out that it was Mr. Walker who set up ACAS.
  In short, we have discussed the valuable role of ACAS and the fact that in 1979 the Government set out to get rid of it. Then they used it during the miners' strike. Then we tended to put forward the argument, with which I think that most Opposition Members concurred, that ACAS had asserted itself during the teachers' dispute and had come up with a kind of resolution. We also discussed the question of its evolution. Could it grow? Where and how would it grow? What kind of shape would it have in the future? Would it be more beneficial? There were also the dangers that it might interfere more in collective bargaining and some of us were worried about that. We have covered the landscape of ACAS and it has all been important.
  Dr. Godman: If we examine the amendment and take on board the power that ACAS has acquired in education, despite its chequered history — I am not unmindful of what happened in the dispute in the coal mining industry—it could play a powerful role. Surely my hon. Friend will agree that it is entirely sensible to envisage an ACAS that is independent of a Conservative Government or a Labour Government, which acts on behalf of weaker groups in the industrial world.
  Mr. Skinner: We could have a good theoretical discussion about what would happen if ACAS managed to grow in that fashion. I would rather tend to the view that it would militate against the growth of trade unionism. Some of us have the old-fashioned view that in
  510
  industrial struggles which take place every day on the shop floor, or in this case in the classroom, the battle for trade unionism survives on the basis of a union being able to say to its members that it is in a position to fight. We would not want to see ACAS develop into a kind of cushion, making it a soft option, which would mean that joining a trade union was not all that important. That is the area in which we would have doubts.
  Mr. Boyes: Let me ask my hon. Friend about those headmasters. I do not want to ask him to withdraw anything because even if the Serjeant at Arms had his sword pointed at my hon. Friend's throat he would not withdraw anything that he had said. However, many headmasters support the Labour party. Tonight's opinion polls show that the number of headmasters who support Labour is growing by every second. I hope my hon. Friend agrees that the rise of 5 per cent. in the opinion polls is not just because of today's debate. I hope he agrees that the 5 per cent. rise is also due to the announcement by the leader of our party that the Labour party will get rid of nuclear weapons.
  The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. The hon. Gentleman must deal with ACAS.
  Mr. Boyes: I am dealing with ACAS, Mr. Walker. I digress for just a second, because you were not in the Chair when we referred to Labour's 5 per cent. rise in the opinion polls. Ever since I became a Member of Parliament I have listened to every statement on education, and no hon. Member knows more about that subject than my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery). For many years he has championed the teachers' cause. Even though he says that the association is a little on the Conservative side, I know that he will not disagree with me when I say that many headmasters are members of the Labour party. Both of us used to be teachers and both of us were members of the Labour party then. We might have been headmasters by now, but we would still be Labour party members.
  Mr. Skinner: At a meeting in my constituency about 10 days ago a headmaster was on the platform with me. We spoke to about 700 people concerning a dispute over the reorganisation of the schools. I took the side of the schools. The dispute may eventually reach Parliament, in which case we shall have to do battle with the Secretary of State for Education and Science. So I have been busy doing a little pre-electioneering. It was not bad to speak to so many teachers and parents. The headmaster stood beside me on that joint platform. People like him are in the right. The same will be true at Bolsover. When I speak there on Sunday the audience is expected to be about 1,000, and I shall again be talking about the reorganisation of schools.
  I have made the point over and over again that there are always exceptions to the rule, but by and large this organisation has cuddled up to the Government during the dispute, particularly during its latter stages.
  Mr. Nellist: I appreciate my hon. Friend's point, to which we shall no doubt return, but when we were discussing ACAS on the previous group of amendments I do not believe that any hon. Member mentioned that our principal objection was to the Secretary of State having the power to appoint an advisory body and then to impose a

  511
  pay structure and conditions of service. That is patronage. While we are dealing with this group of amendments, surely we ought to be discussing the Labour party's demand that members of the conciliation service ought to be elected.
  Mr. Skinner: That must have been in Mr. Walker's mind when, as a Minister, he set up ACAS. Accountability is important. I am not averse to that. However, although we have supported ACAS in this dispute I think that we should be a little careful about how far we back it on every single issue.
  Mr. Rowlands: My hon. Friend has referred continually to head teachers belonging to only one union. Will he accept that there are headmasters and headmistresses even within the National Union of Teachers and that he should not therefore refer to all headmasters and headmistresses as belonging to one union that tends to be Conservative-controlled?
  Mr. Skinner: I think that the record will show that about an hour ago I made no reference whatsoever to all headmasters and headmistresses being Tories. The record will show that I did not say that. It will also show that I have not said that all headmasters and headmistresses are in that one organisation. I am getting a bit fed up of someone being so pernickety, when Hansard will show, when it is produced, that no such statement was made by me. I have no reason to worry about withdrawing because I said simply that the organisation that was named gave more than a little difficulty for the NUT and three other teachers' organisations while people were trying to resolve the dispute. Of course, there are headmasters and headmistresses in the NUT—a few. There are some in another organisation that has also played a part. But there is no problem about me withdrawing my remarks because they are consistent with with what I have just said. The report will show that.
  Mr. Flannery: We are talking about ACAS and head teachers. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that some are also in other unions — very few. The secretary of the Burnham committee was a head teacher. He was helped there by people who are no friends of ours. After their antics, he was removed. He is not secretary any longer, and he had only his own vote on the committee.
  Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend knows the issue inside out. In almost every education debate he has made a contribution and kept hon. Members informed about the conflict. There is no doubt about that. My hon. Friend referred to the component parts of the problem, and I tend to the view that generally he has got the facts right. So I hope that Labour Members will agree with my hon. Friend in his summing-up of what has been a side show. I said that now that the head teachers were coming over to our side, that was welcome, and it could mean that we get more support. My hon. Friend and I are saying, "Come over a bit more quickly. Do not play the Tory game, because when they have used you, just like the Union of Democratic Mineworkers, they will get rid of you. They will not be bothered about you after you have been used."
  I was about to refer to the Government's fiddling on the issue. Their interference is another example of the fiddles with which they have become associated in every single Department of State. One can go through them all, and find their dirty pawmark on almost every single Bill, the
  512
  unemployment figures, and the twisted trade figures. They have now increased the invisibles to £900 million a month. Nobody believes it. What about their attitude towards the City? Now they are fiddling the figures for the teachers. They have tried to argue that they will give more money to all teachers, when as a result of the fiddling they will give more money, with some exceptions, to those on the highest pay. That is another reason why we supported the ACAS resolution of the dispute as opposed to that of the Tories. My hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow had a sore throat earlier. I am getting the same complaint.
  Dr. Godman: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend will speak, and he does not have a sore throat.
  Dr. Godman: I sincerely regret intervening again but it may well be that where the amendment reads, "under the auspices" it might have been better if it had read, "with the assistance and advice of the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service." For all its faults and despite its history, it is an advisory, conciliation and arbitration service and if it were to be introduced into the educational sector of England and Wales, far from weakening the trade union movement, it could be argued that it might well strengthen the trade union involvement in collective bargaining in the education world.
  4 am
  Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend has made that important point before. It brings us back to the argument about the role of ACAS. I do not think that the teachers would want to see their collective bargaining eroded in any way by ACAS. I do not think for one moment that any of the teachers' unions, from whatever side of the fence, would necessarily want to say, "Let us get to ACAS at the earliest possible moment." They want to find a solution to the dispute so that their pay is increased, they are able to teach the kids better, they have improved facilities to work in, the pupil-teacher ratio is lower, and the extra space arising in some schools because of falling rolls is used to advantage. They want to do all those things and resolve them on their own without having to run to ACAS every five minutes, even though, on this occasion, ACAS managed to get a resolution of the dispute.
  Mr. Frank Cook: I must apologise for my inability to catch my hon. Friend's eye previously when he was referring to the nature of the Department of Education and Science and its similarity with other Departments. He said that there were the same sort of pawmarks over this measure. My hon. Friend will recall the high regard in which I hold the animal kingdom and I wonder whether he would consider changing "pawmarks" to "palm prints".
  Mr. Skinner: That is an indication of the way things change in one's own lifetime. It is an interesting aside. It is worth noting that when I became a Member of the House 16 years ago no one would have made that sort of contribution, yet now it has some relevance. It almost has a sort of ACAS imprint on it. If my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) will settle for "imprint", I am quite happy. Some of my family would share that view. I was brought up in a hurly burly environment where such a thing would not have been mentioned. Now it is part of the evolution that is taking

  513
  place, as we see ACAS grow, ACAS develop and ACAS observed, and all the other things that are happening to ACAS.
  Mr. Dixon: ACAS postponed.
  Mr. Skinner: We see all those things and we see headmasters switching from Tory to Labour. That is welcome. Now we see that a greater interest is being taken in this place in the animal kingdom which, let us hope, does not have to go to ACAS to get its problems solved.
  Mr. Michie: I should like to refer to ACAS—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because we do have some dilemmas. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) that ACAS does have a role to play but that it should not stem the growth of trade unions. However, if the Bill goes through and its results are reflected in other jobs and professions, ACAS will be useless anyway. Basically, we shall have dictatorship from the top. Arbitration will be out of the window because the Secretary of State will have all the power.
  Mr. Skinner: We covered that point earlier at some length. We have had that valuable discussion which, I think will assist in shaping our own attitudes towards ACAS in the future.
  Let us suppose that the Government remain in office for another 12 months. Personally, I doubt that very much. I think that the Prime Minister has already put March on the calendar. She is waiting for the first little patch of blue in the sky and then she will go. March is the first possible date. If there is no blue in the sky then, it will be postponed until May or June, and so on. I think that ACAS will be playing a role in various other disputes. For instance, local government officers now have a vested interest in joining the growing army of Labour voters in the next general election.
  I come now to the philosophical point in the Government's attitude to free collective bargaining, because that is the kernel of the amendment. Last week, when the Secretary of State first announced his intentions on this, my hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) and one or two others made their contributions. I thought that what I said on that occasion would form the basis of my speech today, but I have had to deal with ACAS at rather greater length, as the House knows. I had intended to follow up what I said to the Secretary of State on that occasion—that the Government were elected not to interefere.
  The night before the Secretary of State made his statement there was a debate about 300 people sacked by J. E. Hanger. The Minister replying to that debate said that it was not for the Government to interfere between the artificial limb makers and the company that had sacked them. I wondered where this lot would end. We had the same arguement on the Silent Night dispute and in every Government statement under the sun, but the plight of the artificial limb makers struck home with me because they were dealing with thousands of disabled people. Yet the Government insisted time and again that they could not possibly interfere. The very next day the Secretary of State for Education and Science comes along and says that he intends to interfere with teachers' pay. That shows the Government's hypocrisy. It is hypocrisy on a grand scale.
  514
  They could not intervene to save the jobs of the artifical limb makers at Roehampton, because the Government were in cahoots with the company that had sacked those 300 men and women.
  That is why the teachers are so upset. Almost every one of them in the Lobby today was asking what was all this nonsense about interference when the Government had been saying for seven years that they could not possibly interfere with anything—including OPEC oil prices, though that was certainly a "kid 'em and cod 'em" exercise. The Government's philosophy has been non-interference—let the market place decide—but suddenly they decide that it is time to poke their noses into the affairs of 400,000 teachers and their families.
  We are here tonight because we can see the hypocrisy of the Government's position. Let there be no mistake about it. Whatever the results of their little private polls, based on cobbled-up questions, a wider group than teachers will see that a Government elected on a mandate of non-interference with free collective bargaining are now dictated to 400,000 teachers what their wages should be. Moreover, they are tilting things in such a way that, by and large, those at the top of the scale will get more and those at the bottom will get less. That is injustice on a grand scale. That is why we have had to fight the Bill, and why we have kept in order. There is no question of our wanting to stray from the subject of the debate. We have used our opportunities today to try to satisfy the promises and pledges that we have made to the hundreds of people outside and in our constituencies during the past few weeks while the argument has raged. We would not be doing our duty if we did not try to fight the Bill line by line, clause by clause. There is a long way to go. I have not been on my feet for this length of time because I want to be, but because I have to make that contribution to the group who are fighting the Government.
  Like many others, the teachers have taken part in the destabilisation of the Government. It must be destabilisation if the Government resort to the tactics that they said they would never use—intervention. The teachers have something to their credit. They have helped to destabilise the Government, even in their last few months in office. We have to support them until the Bill is concluded.
  If the Government had any sense, even at this late stage they would withdraw the Bill. They would see the writing on the wall. We have heard hardly one speech from Conservative Members, and we noticed that in the Division on the previous group of amendments the Government could not get more than 219 votes—out of a total of 390 Members.
  Dr. Godman: They are the lumpen bourgeoisie.
  Mr. Skinner: They have had to give pairs and bisques, I think they are called—a type of absentee ticket—to some of their people because they do not have the stomach to fight. When their majority falls to 50-odd, as it did in the previous Division, the Government are being told something.
  When the Government do not have the decency to acknowledge that, after all of their rabbiting on about ballots for all groups of workers, they will not allow the teachers to have the opportunity to have a ballot to decide the issue, that makes their hypocrisy even worse.
  People see through such things. They might think that the spy thing is a bit complicated and be fed up with

  515
  reading about it, but there is an inconsistency in letting one lot of people print a book but not letting another lot print one. By and large, voters see the simple issues. They know where the Government stand on non-intervention and market forces and what the Prime Minister has said time and again about them, but here they are, in their last days, poking their nose in on a grand scale.
  Teachers have an advantage over some groups of workers. They can communicate to a wider audience than even miners. Miners spend their days down the pit or at the pit top. They are in a closed community. To some extent, the same is true of steel workers. When they are tackled, the ripples to do not spread as far as they should, but teachers have to talk in their vocation—it is the essence of what they have to do. They also see through hypocrisy quickly.
  The Secretary of State has turned round. I thought that he was about to bow like he did at the Tory party conference. I have never seen a bigger fool in Christendom than when he bowed. His head nearly touched the floor, he was so elated at the fact that he had been able to read for about 20 minutes from two of those boards that Reagan introduced. He has the cheek to tell teachers, with their difficult job, that he will regulate their pay, when they have a proper system of collective bargaining. He has the cheek to interfere on that scale. It is a form of unilateralism. He is a unilateralist on teachers' pay.
  4.15 am
  The debate has been essential as part of the several components that make up the details of the national debate. I do not want anybody to tell me that the settlement is too costly, and there is not enough money to find the extra for the teachers that the ACAS settlement will mean, when it is not much more than the Government have to offer. There is plenty of money in the country. The Prime Minister came back from the Common Market the other day, and she was not talking about non-intervention. She was trying not to talk about the fact that there will soon be a big fat bill for the Common Market gravy train. Those out there are living off the backs of teachers and the rest of them, and are producing little or nothing, but the Prime Minister comes to the Dispatch Box, in the very week when the Government are hammering the teachers, and says that she is to bring in Supplementary Estimates to bail out the Common Market. That is on top of the £6,000 million that has already been paid net by the British taxpayers, including teachers, to keep this crazy ship afloat.
  Who are these people to talk about the teachers having assessments? Who has assessed this lot? Who decided that they were capable of running the country's affairs, when they cannot even keep their own spies in order? Who are they, when they can let the pound sink to the bottom of the Thames, they wreck business men and women and, the foreign reserves are lower than they are in Italy, after seven years of Thatcherism? Who are these people to tell the teachers that they cannot have an ACAS settlement because they know better?
  Who assessed the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie), the Minister for foot and mouth? Who assessed them for pay? They all get the same money. An articulate teacher or headmaster might want to assess that lot, and make variations on the scale for these Ministers. What would they pay the Secretary of State? What is he really worth?
  Mr. Bermingham: Not a lot.
  Mr. Skinner: There are all those Tory party officials masquerading as Ministers. What would be the assessment of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster? He admitted from the Dispatch Box that he does only about 15 hours a month for his big, fat ministerial salary. What would happen to his salary if he had to be assessed in the way that the Secretary of State is telling the teachers that they should be assessed? He would not be rushing across to America without his passport. How does he do that? Not many other people could manage it. We do not want the Tory Government telling teachers that they should be assessed when they cannot even do their own job properly.
  We are battling on behalf of the teachers as part of their campaign. That is why we met them today and we have kept our promise to battle on their behalf. Without exception, we in the Opposition—I cannot speak for the SDP and the Liberal party, because most of their hon. Members have not even poked their noses into the debate—are determined to put the teachers' case, about which they lobbied us today. If the Secretary of State had any sense he would take this bill back from whence it came.
  Mr. Bermingham: My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has accused me of speaking quietly. I hope that when I speak quietly I sometimes speak with some common sense. This dangerous little Bill and the amendment are important.
  Before I speak about the Bill and the amendment, I shall correct my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover on another matter. By doing that I shall perhaps add to his fund of knowledge about Hangers and the disablement workers. He is probably aware that BTR owns that company and is trying to take over Pilkington in my constituency. I am worried and the people of St. Helens are worried about that, because we do not want to see happen to Pilkington what has happened to Hangers. I hope that I can rely on the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover when we fight the proposed takeover by BTR. I notice that he nods. I am grateful for his support.
  I admit that I have immediately gone off track, but perhaps in my own quiet way I can return to it. I worry when the conceit of power reaches dictatorship. On the teachers' pay dispute there is conceit of power on the part of the Secretary of State. I do not apologise for calling the Secretary of State conceited in his belief that he has supreme ability to judge what a teacher is worth, what he or she should be paid, and how teachers' settlements should be arrived at. Who will decide? Will the Secretary of STate personally decide that a teacher in Cowley hill school in St. Helens will be graded 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5, or will he put in one of his minions to do it. I worry about that.
  Dr. Godman: My hon. Friend talks about the arrogance of Ministers taking power under this Bill. I was struck by what Louis MacNeice said over 40 years ago about Oxford dons. He said:
  "They have charm without warmth and knowledge without understanding."
  That charge can be levied against this doltish lot. Does my hon. Friend agree that this amendment is double-edged, in that it provides ACAS with a glorious opportunity to put its chequered history to one side and to develop in a much more independent fashion?
  Mr. Bermingham: I agree with much of what my hon. Friend says. I listened with interest to his debate with my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover. Many of us have much to learn from that debate because it enabled us to see the two sides of the argument about ACAS. As my hon. Friend the Member of Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) is aware, ACAS grew from perhaps the first tentative discussions on industry by Professor John Wood in the early negotiations into which he was called, long before ACAS existed, to seek to resolve by conciliation. The idea of conciliation, diplomacy, discussion and resolution can be explored further in future.
  I was referring to the Secretary of State and I used the word "conceit". I stand by that. I say "arrogance", and I stand by that, too. It is being said that if the Government do not like what two completely independent bodies arrive at by way of negotiation—
  The Chairman: Order. I am having some difficulty in following the hon. Member, and that will continue to be the position if he persists in speaking while turned away from the Chair. It would be helpful if the hon. Gentleman were to turn more towards the Chair.
  Mr. Bermingham: My deepest apologies, Mr. Walker. I hate the thought that you might miss one word of the pearls of wisdom that I seek to drop. I shall naturally turn to face you, Mr. Walker, and turn away from my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow. My hon. Friend raised such an interesting matter that I felt the courtesy of addressing him was necessary. I appreciate, Mr. Walker, that I should have addressed you.
  When two parties reach a solution to a problem, it ill behoves someone else to walk in and say, "I don't like it. I shall destroy it. I shall take it away. I alone have the right to decide." Why is this happening? Why has the Secretary of State felt it necessary to say to the teaching profession, "You may negotiate with those who employ you, who are in day-to-day contact with you, but, if I do not like your solution, I shall do it my way." It is rather like a child in a school playground who wants to join in the ball game, and when he does not get his own way he steals the ball. That is the arrogance that has developed over the past seven years.
  When people in society reach agreement and the Government start to steal the ball, thinking that they alone have the monopoly of wisdom, we are reaching a dangerous state. My great fear is that we shall return to the conditions that applied in the 1930s, which were summed up as follows:
  "Then they came for the trade unionists and I didn't speak up because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics and I was a Protestant so I didn't speak up."
  We must remember how the quotation develops, which is as follows:
  "Then they came for me … By that time there was no one to speak up for anyone."
  The danger of the road that we are now treading is that the Government seem to believe that they have a monopoly of wisdom and that anyone who might take a slightly different view is utterly wrong. The teachers and the local authorities can no longer negotiate because they may not come to the answer that the Government want.
  The Government say that the trade unions are wrong. They said that they were wrong during the miners' strike and they took away their rights. With the miners, they took away the pits. That was quicker. Where does this
  518
  road end? When the Government debate an idea in the House, they work on the principle that they have a majority of 160 votes or more, that it does not matter what anyone else says and that they will steamroller through their policy.
  The consideration of the Bill in Committee should not be taking place on the Floor of the House. The Bill should be considered by a Standing Committee in the same way as the majority of Bills. The Government's conceit and that of the Secretary of State is demonstrated by their view that they have some divine right to steamroller their policies through the House and to change the order, as it were, because that suits them. The Secretary of State leans back, closes his eyes and appears to be going to sleep. It does not matter what any of us say. He wants his Bill and the votes for it are to be found in the corridors and cubbyholes of this place. The only thing that we can do is to argue—at 4.29 in the morning—and we have reached only amendment No. 4.
  Democracy is valuble. The Government are treading a very dangerous road by taking the view, "We do not care what anyone else says. We will get our way." That philosophy has destroyed more societies than any other in history. That philosophy destroyed the Roman empire and created the problems of the 1930s in Europe, and it is destroying this land. The conceit and danger that flows from the contempt for opposition creates dictatorship but does not sustain democracy. That is why at half-past four in the morning I ask the Government and the Secretary of State to think again. They should allow the Bill time. They should listen to what is being said and be aware of the dangers. There is no monopoly of wisdom in government or in the Civil Service. There is a right to dissent.
  4.30 am
  Under the International Labour Organisation agreements there is a fundamental right for an employee to negotiate with an employer. I know that the Government do not give a fig for international arrangements. I cite another simple example that will occur later today. In the Criminal Justice Bill, clause 22 flies in the face of agreed conventions on refugees. That again shows the conceit of a Government who tear up their international arrangements.
  The people of this land—[Interruption.] It seems that someone has a hearing aid and we are getting a whistling noise. I get very paranoid. We have this Australian spy business. Apparently everything is bugged nowadays, and I am beginning to wonder whether one of us is bugged.
  I come back to the point about democracy —[Interruption.] I think I know where the noise is coming from. It is in the Reporters' Gallery. Obviously a machine is going wrong.
  There is a fundamental principle at stake — the right of a human being to try to negotiate his or her own conditions of service, but not with the all-powerful central state system. I can imagine what the Secretary of State would say if we lived in a halcyon society under a Labour Government who suggested that the education service should be run from London rather than by local authorities. The right hon. Gentleman would be screaming about a centralist society, extreme Left-wing views and so on. What is he seeking to do? Why cannot the Derbyshire, Cumbria, Hampshire or Norfolk county councils

  519
  negotiate with their own employees? Why must the Secretary of State take the power himself? There is no justification for what he seeks to do.
  Very gently, I ask the Secretary of State to accept the amendment, because then there would be a litte fairness and a little less dictatorship. If the Secretry of State is a democrat, he will agree with me. If he is a potential dictator, he will disagree. I await with interest to see what he does.
  Mr. Fisher: We have had a good debate, not least because we have had the benefit of hearing—apart from my hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice)—no fewer than eight of my hon. Friends making speeches and another 12 who have intervened. However, what has been lacking in the debate was any serious dialogue from the Government. The hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) spoke for six minutes and the Minister for 21 minutes.
  We heard nothing from the Government about the principles behind ACAS and its useful role in the negotiations, or about our amendments dealing with ACAS machinery and the Nottingham settlement. I regret that, because these are vital issues. The House will regret that the Government choose to remain silent.
  From the Liberal spokesman we had only an attempt to close our debate. The hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Freud) suffers from "speedophobia" and believes that we should rush our consideration of the Bill. He will agree that the issues are important and that the House has never had such a long discussion on ACAS machinery. I assure the hon. Member that all aspects of the Bill will be discussed. We are seeking to compress into a short time the scrutiny that would take five or six weeks in a Standing Committee. If we were upstairs he would not complain that we were still considering clause 1. We shall get through the Bill.
  Mr. Freud: I am glad to hear that. I was concerned because the Bill has 200 lines and we have spent over 12 hours on the first five. Substantial contributions must be made on the other clauses. We on the Liberal Benches made it clear on Second Reading that we were content with clause 1. To remind us time and again that we are honouring our commitment on Second Reading ill becomes the party with which we have much in common.
  Mr. Fisher: I take issue with the hon. Gentleman. There can be little in common between our parties if he is content with clause 1. He cannot have listened to the debate. We object to the arbitrary repeal of the Remuneration of Teachers Act 1965. We agree that the Burnham negotiating machinery should be reformed radically and we have tabled constructive amendments suggesting how it should be reformed.
  It seems that the Liberal party is content with a Bill which abolishes the Remuneration of Teachers Act and replaces it with the Secretary of State. The first line contains a fundamental principle and if the hon. Member does not understand that fact, he has not been listening to the debate. A fundamental democratic right is being taken away from trade unionists and local authorities, and enormous, amazing powers are centralised on the Government. When we inherit those powers we shall repeal them and produce democratic, accountable collective bargaining machinery. That is the only way forward.
  520
  We have attempted, successfully I think, to put the arguments over the past few hours. My hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North said that we would give the matter serious and detailed consideration and I believe that we have done so. My hon. Friends the Members for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman), for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay) and for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) all have considerable industrial relations and trade union negotiating expertise. They spoke on those aspects and my hon. Friends the Members for Easington (Mr. Dormand), who was a chief education officer, and for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery), who was a head teacher, gave us the benefit of their expertise.
  It is difficult to select one speech from the debate, but I think that the Committee would feel it wrong not to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) who made a fluent, well-reasoned and effective speech in his first Committee contribution.
  There is often not much new material in these debates, but my hon. Friend the Member for Easington produced one piece of new material when he read out the letter from the chairman of the employers' side of the management panel of the Burnham primary and secondary committee. Perhaps the Secretary of State and other hon. Members will receive the letter tomorrow.
  The chairman said:
  "I have written to the Secretary of State calling upon him to reconsider his decision … The Government's Bill … will make the situation in the schools even worse"—
  Mr. Kenneth Baker: I am not surprised by that letter.
  Mr. Fisher: Is the Secretary of State really saying that he is not surprised that the employers' side on the Burnham committee is making such statements? The chairman says that the Bill is "retrograde and undemocratic". If the chairman of the employers' side feels like that, who agrees with the Secretary of State? Only the hon. Member for Ealing, North, who knows something about education, has supported the right hon. Gentleman in the debate. His other hon. Friends have been conspicuously absent. They must know in their heart of hearts—
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hogg): We know that it is a filibuster; that is the reason.
  Mr. Fisher: Conservatives talk about a filibuster, but they were quite keen to talk in our first debate. When we discuss collective bargaining, ACAS and constructive alternatives for a negotiating machinery only one Conservative Member wants to support the Secretary of State. It is very interesting.
  Mr. Flannery: Is it not clear that the Minister has an utter and arrogant contempt for all of us and that he has a special contempt for the chairman of the management side? Although local employers pay 54 per cent. of teachers' salaries, the Minister regards himself as the chairman of the management side and, indeed, does not want a management side. He will do it all himself.
  4.45 am
  Mr. Fisher: When my hon. Friend referred to the Minister having contempt, I am sure that he meant to refer to the Secretary of State. All hon. Members will agree that the Minister of State did not show contempt. She showed

  521
  ignorance and a lack of coherence in her arguments at some stage. She made an attempt to justify the Government's position on this matter. As my hon. Friend pointed out in an intervention, yet again, as she and some of her hon. Friends did on Second Reading on Monday, she made a good case for re-negotiating and finding a better way of handling the negotiating machinery. She made a good case for reforming Burnham. We agree with her on that matter, and so will the unions and the employers—the local education authorities. She did not go on to make a case for replacing it. She basically came back to the one thing that the Secretary of State said ad nauseam since he stopped bad-mouthing the Nottingham agreement and calling it a fiasco.
  The Secretary of State has changed his tack because he has realised that he was wrong about that matter. He has continued to say that there are not enough incentive points. He believes that there should be five. There are two in the ACAS settlement, and we refer to them in the amendments. The NUT has made it clear that it would be interested in talking about a third point. The hon. Member for Ealing, North, who knows a little more about education and has had greater experience in this field than some other hon. Members—though probably not more than the Minister of State—said that he recognised that five may be wrong and that perhaps we should talk about four. As my hon. Friend has said, we ask whether there should be five, four or three incentive points. That fairly fine difference—perhaps the difference between the two parties—is one incentive point.
  The Secretary of State is prepared to take these extraordinary measures, constitutionally and through Parliament, and give himself extraordinary powers to take away democratic rights from trade unionists, teachers and local authorities—and from Conservative local authorities, many of whom object just as thoroughly as Labour-controlled authorities. They know what it means to education. That is all for the sake of, possibly, one incentive point.
  Can the Secretary of State really be so petty and silly? That is what it comes down to. Parents will understand that. The difference between the two positions is probably one or two incentive points. It is not a matter of principle, it is a matter of detail to be negotiated. The Secretary of State knows that but he is too proud or too arrogant—may be he has other motives—but he will not negotiate or conciliate. He has not asked them to come and talk to him. Frankly, it is a disgrace to his office that he will not do so. He puts Parliament, the teaching profession and the future of the way in which education is negotiated in this country in jeopardy for such a small, fine point. He is standing on his pride. He wishes to see everybody crawl to him and accept his terms.
  Time and again, the Secretary of State has said, in answer to questions, "They can come and talk to me, but on my terms. They must accept it. I can move no further." is that the way in which a pragmatist—a politician or somebody who wants to find an answer—should behave? Of course it is not. The teachers made that clear this afternoon. They were not all Labour supporters—they were not even all alliance supporters. Amazingly, there were probably some people who voted Tory at the last general election. Whether they will do so again after this remains to be seen. They know the reality. They know
  522
  that the Secretary of State will not dare, and does not care, to negotiate. They will take that message back to their schools and talk to parents. Parents will understand that, too. Not only is the Secretary of State wrong in this matter, but he is making a stupid mistake.
  If the Secretary of State considers that he is so right and so clever and that the country will believe his view of things, will he back that judgment and have a ballot of teachers? The Government are keen on ballots when they think that they will suit their convenience. The Secretary of State knows very well that, if teachers in all six unions—even the ones that do not like the ACAS agreement, such as the NAS and the NAHT—were asked whether they supported the Secretary of State's statement, they would probably give a derisory vote. I should be amazed if he got 10 or 15 per cent. of teachers to agree with him if he put it to a straight ballot. The Minister of State says, "Oh no, we cannot possibly do that." Of course, the Government can do that. They can table a new clause. They have given themselves amazing powers in the Bill, so they can certainly give themselves the powers to consult and ballot teachers. But they will not dare do that in this place or in the other place because they know the result.
  The Secretary of State not only is not interested in conciliation, he is not even interested in hearing anyone's opinion but his. I am sure that he has the votes to railroad this measure through eventually, but he is wrong. He is making a terrible mistake and is certainly not making any friends.
  The Minister of State talked about the role of the Secretary of State. Of course there is a role for the Secretary of State, whoever are in power. At the moment the Secretary of State rightly contributes 46·4 per cent. to the teachers' salary bill. Paragraph 7·4 of the ACAS agreement states that that will be discussed. There is a role for the Secretary of State, but not the arrogant, dominant role that he envisages. Surely, the right hon. Gentleman can understand that. He should think again.
  The amendments are simple. They provide for the setting up of the negotiating machinery agreed at ACAS and for the determination of teachers' pay by agreement. Sadly, the Minister of State did not mention new clause 1—I am sure that that was an oversight—on teachers' pension arrangements. I am sure that the Minister would agree that pension arrangements for teachers are important for those 400,000 workers. It is sad that that measure was not considered because it is important. We should like to vote on it separately at an appropriate time, Mr. Walker. I ask you to consider that, Sir. The pension arrangements for 400,000 workers are worthy of a separate vote.
  The arguments have been well rehearsed, so I shall not go through them again. We have been through them all. The Secretary of State may say that his door is open—
  Mr. Flannery: His mind is shut.
  Mr. Fisher: —but, once the teachers get through it, there is nothing that they can say to him, except, "Yes, we agree with you." My hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough took my line, although it was not a very original one. The right hon. Gentleman's mind is shut. I suspect that he was deaf to most of the debate as well. He can laugh. There have been many references to the right hon. Gentleman's smile. He is not being very clever. He is not bein,g politically shrewd or wise in the Bill.

  523
  The Government have given no answers in the debate. They are, perhaps, drunk with their majority. Immediately after the last general election, the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Pym) lost his place in the Cabinet because he said that majorities of this size were not very healthy and that they led to trouble. The Government's majority has led to various sorts of trouble. The Secretary of State and the Government are so drunk with their majority, their rhetoric and hostility towards trade unions, industrial relations, local government, decentralisation and the public sector—in this case, the maintained sector of education—that it is leading them astray. People would call their actions idiocy. The Opposition would call it rank injustice. We shall certainly vote for the amendment and we ask for a separate vote on pension arrangements, Mr. Walker.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 31, Noes 131.

  Division no. 27]

  [4.55 am

  AYES

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

  Madden, Max

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Marek, Dr John

  Clay, Robert

  Michie, William

  Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)

  Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

  Cohen, Harry

  Nellist, David

  Cook, Frank (Stockton North)

  Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Radice, Giles

  Dalyell, Tam

  Raynsford, Nick

  Fatchett, Derek

  Richardson, Ms Jo

  Fisher, Mark

  Rowlands, Ted

  Flannery, Martin

  Skinner, Dennis

  Freud, Clement

  Spearing, Nigel

  Godman, Dr Norman

  Stott, Roger

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Home Robertson, John

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Howarth, George (Knowsley, N)

  Mr. Allen McKay and

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Mr. Don Dixon.

  Livsey, Richard

  NOES

  Alexander, Richard

  Couchman, James

  Amess, David

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Arnold, Tom

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Ashby, David

  Dicks, Terry

  Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

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

  Dover, Den

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Dunn, Robert

  Baldry, Tony

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Batiste, Spencer

  Fallon, Michael

  Bellingham, Henry

  Favell, Anthony

  Bendall, Vivian

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  Benyon, William

  Forman, Nigel

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Biggs-Davison, Sir John

  Forth, Eric

  Blackburn, John

  Franks, Cecil

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Freeman, Roger

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Gale, Roger

  Bottomley, Peter

  Galley, Roy

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Bright, Graham

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

  Brinton, Tim

  Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

  Bruinvels, Peter

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Burt, Alistair

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Butterfill, John

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Hargreaves, Kenneth

  Cash, William

  Harris, David

  Chope, Christopher

  Hawkins, Sir Paul (N'folk SW)

  Churchill, W. S.

  Hayes, J.

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Hickmet, Richard

  Conway, Derek

  Hind, Kenneth

  Coombs, Simon

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Cope, John

  Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

  Corrie, John

  Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

  524

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)

  Moynihan, Hon C.

  Hubbard-Miles, Peter

  Neale, Gerrard

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Neubert, Michael

  Hunter, Andrew

  Newton, Tony

  Jessel, Toby

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Norris, Steven

  Jones, Robert (Herts W)

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

  Osborn, Sir John

  King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

  Page, Sir John (Harrow W)

  Knowles, Michael

  Patten, Christopher (Bath)

  Latham, Michael

  Pawsey, James

  Lawler, Geoffrey

  Pollock, Alexander

  Lightbown, David

  Portillo, Michael

  Lilley, Peter

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Powley, John

  Lord, Michael

  Proctor, K. Harvey

  Lyell, Nicholas

  Raffan, Keith

  McCurley, Mrs Anna

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Maclean, David John

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  Malins, Humfrey

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Malone, Gerald

  Spencer, Derek

  Marlow, Antony

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Mather, Carol

  Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Thurnham, Peter

  Mayhew, Sir Patrick

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Merchant, Piers

  Walden, George

  Miller, Hal (B'grove)

  Mills, Iain (Meriden)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

  Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd and

  Moate, Roger

  Mr. Tony Durant.

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I beg to move amendment No. 6, in page 1, line 5, at end insert
  'except as it refers to teachers in further education.'
  The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 16, in page 1, line 6, after 'of, insert 'school'.
  No. 29, in line 13, leave out paragraph (b).
  Mr. Bennett: The Opposition expect this to be a fairly short debate, compared with the earlier debates. Our intention is to probe rather than to criticise the Government. We are delighted that the Government have not decided unilaterally to abolish the right of collective bargaining to those who work in further education. However, we should like the Minister of State to explain why the Government are so pleased with the further education negotiations and would like them to continue in their present form although they believe that it is necessary to abolish collective bargaining for those who teach in schools.
  Throughout the greater part of the negotiations the same negotiator has led both the further education and the schools negotiations and has striven to obtain a settlement. A fair number of unions and professional associations are involved in the further education negotiations. The local authorities and the teacher unions have conducted the negotiations under their own auspices and have not had to call in ACAS. As ACAS has been brought in only to facilitate the school negotiations, that is no reason for the Government's view that one set of negotiations should be dealt with in one way and the other set in another.
  I accept that good progress has been made. Perhaps that is why the Government are pleased about the further education negotiations in September on structure and the new form of appraisal. However, the negotiations have collapsed. Is that why the Government are pleased? Are

  525
  they pleased that the talks have collapsed? I hope that the negotiations will resume in January. If the talks are to make reasonable progress in January, the Government must say how much money is available for the further education settlement. The school negotiations continued for a very long time and they were unable to make reasonable progress because of the former Secretary of State's reluctance to tell the teacher unions and the local authorities how much money was available.
  If there is to be any prospect of resuming the talks on restructuring further education and on appraisal, the Government must find about £160 million. I hope the Minister will be able to tell the Committee that that money will be made available, or that at least the Government will say when they will be able to inform the local authorities and the teachers' unions about how much money is to be made available. If they do not provide that information, the negotiators will be blindfolded and their job will be made extremely difficult.
  Those who work in further education at all levels have slipped below average earnings by at least as much as the teachers, and in some cases they have slipped even further behind. For example, on a cash index of 100 in 1975, following Houghton and the adjustments to teachers' salaries at all levels, the income of lecturers in further education in 1986 has increased to 274. If that is compared with the average earnings of non-manual workers, both male and female, over the same period, the cash index has increased from 100 to 359. That shows that those in further education have slipped even further behind than school teachers.
  I hope that tonight the Government will say something about part-time workers and the increasing number of people in further education who are on short-term contracts. Short-term contracts are a cause of considerable concern to those in further education, in particular to those who are on contracts financed by Manpower Services Commission funds.
  The short-term funding in FE causes a great deal of concern and alarm. I hope that the Minister can throw some light on the Government's thinking about the negotiations with regard to the effect on the number of part-time and short-term contracts that are available in FE colleges.
  We also ask the Minister to give serious thought to the anomalies that will develop as a result of the Bill in regard to pupils of 16, 17 and 18. Some will attend sixth form traditional schools, others will attend sixth form colleges, which will be under schools regulations, and teachers will have all forms of collective bargaining taken away from them by the legislation. Other pupils in the same age group doing exactly the same courses will be in FE or tertiary colleges where the lecturers will be under the Burnham provisions for further education and will retain the rights to collective bargaining and negotiations on their rates of pay. We welcome the fact that they are retaining those powers, but it is anomalous to take them away from one group and leave them with the other.
  I press the Government to give us their views on the way in which the talks have gone on new structure and appraisal. Considerable dissatisfaction is felt by the local authority associations and the further education unions about the Burnham FE structure. It would be appropriate
  526
  if a new negotiating body was developed, perhaps before some of the acrimony that developed in the last years of the Burnham negotiations develops in further education.
  I hope that the Minister will justify to us the differences between the treatment of schools and FE and give us clear information about the current position of the talks and how much money will be made available to facilitate progress. Is she satisfied with the suggested structure? I hope that she will refer to appraisal, give her views on the problems of the short-term contracts, and above all, say how much money will be available to make the move forward. I hope that the hon. Lady can give us constructive answers. If we can make real progress, we might be able to have a fairly short debate.
  Mrs. Rumbold: I shall address the amendments in the order in which they appear on the Amendment Paper.
  Amendment No. 6 would repeal the Remuneration of Teachers Act 1965 only as regards school teachers' pay, leaving its provisions in force for the future determination of further education pay. The weaknesses of the Burnham system apply just as much to further education pay as to that of school teachers. There is an unwarranted dislocation between pay and other conditions of service in both cases. Everyone is agreed that new machinery is needed that brings both aspects together.
  In further education, there is already a national joint council of local authority employers and unions, which is trying, albeit with limited success at present, to look at pay and conditions together. The Government are willing to leave determination of those matters to such a body for the future.
  Dr. Keith Hampson: Will my hon. Friend refresh my memory? Is it not the case that the Association of Polytechnic Teachers is not on that body? I have a terrible feeling that we are doing enormous damage to a union in the polytechnic world, of which we have always thought highly. As a result of this Government's measures it has been placed on the Burnham committee, but the provisions in this Bill deny that role.
  Mrs. Rumbold: Although the Association of Polytechnic Teachers has a place on the Burnham further education committee, it has rarely been invited to sit in the negotiating chamber with the committee. The Government's present proposals would leave it open for it to apply to the national joint council. It represents a substantial body of interested people. We are told that both the unions and employers are reasonable and would be only too willing to accept representations from properly constituted unions. One would hope that we would have proof of that in the near future and that it will be made a full member of the national joint council, which we propose to leave in place.
  Dr. Hampson: With respect, I do not think that many Conservative Members would accept that as sufficient. We all supported strongly the application of the Association of Polytechnic Teachers to have fair representation on Burnham. That teachers union felt badly discriminated against because of its strong position in the polytechnic world, as against the further education world in general, and it had problems with the other major union. We would like to hear that the Government will do something to guarantee that it will have a place in the new system immediately should these provisions come into effect.
  5.15 am
  Mrs. Rumbold: My hon. Friend makes a powerful case. I assure him that we are conscious of the fact that there is an injustice in the position of the APT, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will undertake to look carefully at its position.
  Amendment No. 16 would limit the continuation of existing pay arrangements, until superseded, to school teachers. Unless other amendments were made, the pay scales and pensions affecting further education teachers would fall with the passage of the Bill, rather than when superseded by future agreements between employers and unions, as intended. The sub-paragraph provides that existing arrangements will continue until superseded by new provisions made for school teachers under the provision of the Bill and, for further education teachers, agreed between employers and teachers. The amendment would mean that the present further education pay scales and provisions would fall with the enactment of the Bill, whether or not new provisions existed to take their place. That cannot be sensible.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: If amendment No. 6 were carried it would make sense.
  Mrs. Rumbold: I am not certain about that.
  Amendment No. 29 makes it clear that further education teachers and employers are to be empowered to settle matters between themselves or in such other manner as they may agree. The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) asked about the money to be available for employers to negotiate the pay for further education teachers. My right hon. Friend has made it clear that any new money that the employers negotiate will have to be found from within their own resources. I believe that the employers are well apprised of that situation. If there are difficulties within the negotiations at present, I feel confident, as I am sure the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish does, since we have been hearing about, and extolling the glories, wonders and magnificence of, the national joint council, that things will be clarified in January when the talks resume and that a satisfactory conclusion will be found for the dilemma that apparently seems to exist within the national joint council.
  I have covered the points that have been raised. All the negotiations, of course, are between the employers and the unions. All the matters which the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish raised about part-time teachers, teachers in tertiary colleges and so on are for those people to discuss in the joint council. I urge the Committee to reject the amendments.
  Mr. Richard Livsey: The amendments set one group of teachers against another. We need to see some unification in the profession, yet here we see the Government making attempts to split it. Teachers in the further education sector will apparently be the subject of negotiations under present arrangements, whereas those in schools will be subject to another set of rules. That shows a certain amount of inconsistency in the Government's approach to this matter. For example, teachers in sixth form colleges will be included in the arrangements, while other teachers will not. That is extremely divisive.
  The subject of appraisal in the further education sector is of great interest to me, as I worked in that sector before
  528
  coming to the House. The career structure in that sector is not at all clear at present and the differences in pay and conditions between LI and L2 lecturers and senior lecturers leave a good deal to be desired. If a better career structure can be provided through amendments to the Bill and discussions about it, that will be a great improvement on the present situation. The erosion of pay scales in recent years has not been in the best interests of futher education.
  Pay in the further education sector has also fallen sadly behind. It would be impossible to bring back Houghton overnight, as lecturers' pay has fallen 33 per cent. behind in the 10 years since the Houghton agreements. In my previous occupation, I noted with interest that my salary as a senior lecturer before coming to the House about 16 months ago was the equivalent of the top scale for a police constable. After a degree, various amounts of training and 14 years lecturing, that is disgraceful. Police constables are valuable members of society, but they do not spend their days instructing 50, 60 or even 100 students, imparting knowledge and sharing it with those students. If the present arrangements are left in place, as the amendment suggests, I trust that the FE sector will get a fairer crack of the whip. Having been a member of the National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education for many years, I know that we have not had a fair crack of the whip for some time and that there has been tremendous erosion of our position. It is also important to achieve proper pension arrangements for the FE sector.
  I think that I speak for my party in saying that it is an extremely divisive arrangement to split off the FE sector from other sectors.
  Mr. Allen McKay: I am not very clear or very happy about the provision or about the Minister's reply. Many education authorities are now going in for tertiary colleges. I am not convinced that that is the best path to take. I have always been a strong supporter of sixth form colleges attached to schools. I appreciate some of the arguments in favour of tertiary colleges, but I am still not convinced. I do not see why they should provide better education opportunities because there are more students and a greater variety of teachers. Why should it be better for working-class children to have larger numbers when the public schools always go for smaller numbers?
  I wonder why we are hiving off the further education sector. Why do we have a Bill which takes away the negotiating rights of teachers organisations? Is the Secretary of State looking further ahead? I understand that he is taking powers to introduce different rates of pay in different areas. Will local authorities negotiate separately with their staff? Is the Secretary of State prepared for that?
  Mr. Fatchett: I do not know whether I should start by declaring an indirect interest, in that my wife is a teacher in further education. Perhaps I can act as a negotiator on her behalf.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) warmed my heart when he talked about short-term contracts. I listened with interest on my wife's behalf to see whether the Minister came up with an answer to that problem. My hon. Friend was right to say that there has been a substantial growth in Manpower Service Commission funding for short-term contracts and in short-term contracts generally. It would have been interesting if the Minister had commented on that.

  529
  It would be churlish of me not to say that I agreed with some of what the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey) said. He spoke of lectureship scales in further education. He will have noticed that Ministers seem to have no difficulty with regard to scales when we are talking about further education, but that they have a limited and particular set of objectives when we come to teachers. If it is right to have scales in one sector, I should have thought that it would be right to have them in another.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish asked the Minister why there is disparity of treatment. The Minister said that there is a national joint council for further education teachers with which the Government are not prepared to interfere at this stage. I suspect that the Minister might join us on the next group of amendments, which suggest that we should have a national joint council for teachers.
  I realise that the Minister is a fair person. She says that she likes a national joint council for further education, so I should have thought that she would be consistent and join us on the next group of amendments. I welcome her support and hope that it will be transferred into votes. Perhaps she will take the Secretary of State into the Lobby with her. We heard her say that the national joint council is the factor that makes all the difference.
  As for scales and the collective bargaining machinery, teachers in primary and secondary education are treated differently from teachers in further education. We object to that fundamental difference, and the Minister has given no explanation for it.
  5.30 am
  We asked about one or two other detailed points—for example, money that may be available in the negotiations that will affect further education lecturers in the early part of 1987. What we really object to is the difference of treatment. We cannot understand how the Government can treat some teachers in one way and further education teachers in another. We are not asking that further education teachers be treated as badly as teachers in primary and secondary education — we are asking that teachers in primary and secondary education have their rights preserved. Because of the Minister's inadequate answer, and because of our fundamental objections to the Bill, we shall divide the Committee on amendment No. 6.
  Question put:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 27, Noes 124.

  Division No. 28]

  [5.30 am

  AYES

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

  Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

  Clay, Robert

  Nellist, David

  Cohen, Harry

  Parry, Robert

  Cook, Frank (Stockton North)

  Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Radice, Giles

  Dalyell, Tam

  Raynsford, Nick

  Dixon, Donald

  Richardson, Ms Jo

  Fisher, Mark

  Rowlands, Ted

  Flannery, Martin

  Skinner, Dennis

  Godman, Dr Norman

  Spearing, Nigel

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Stott, Roger

  Home Robertson, John

  Howarth, George (Knowsley, N)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Livsey, Richard

  Mr. Derek Fatchett and

  Marek, Dr John

  Mr. Allen McKay.

  Michie, William

  530

  NOES

  Alexander, Richard

  Hawkins, Sir Paul (N'folk SW)

  Amess, David

  Hickmet, Richard

  Arnold, Tom

  Hind, Kenneth

  Ashby, David

  Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

  Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

  Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

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

  Hubbard-Miles, Peter

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Baldry, Tony

  Hunter, Andrew

  Batiste, Spencer

  Jessel, Toby

  Bendall, Vivian

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Benyon, William

  Jones, Robert (Herts W)

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

  Biggs-Davison, Sir John

  King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

  Blackburn, John

  Knowles, Michael

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Latham, Michael

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Lawler, Geoffrey

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Bottomley, Peter

  Lilley, Peter

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Lord, Michael

  Bright, Graham

  Lyell, Nicholas

  Brinton, Tim

  McCurley, Mrs Anna

  Bruinvels, Peter

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Burt, Alistair

  Maclean, David John

  Butterfill, John

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Malins, Humfrey

  Cash, William

  Malone, Gerald

  Chope, Christopher

  Marlow, Antony

  Churchill, W. S.

  Mather, Carol

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Conway, Derek

  Merchant, Piers

  Coombs, Simon

  Miller, Hal (B'grove)

  Cope, John

  Mills, Iain (Meriden)

  Corrie, John

  Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

  Couchman, James

  Moate, Roger

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Moynihan, Hon C.

  Dicks, Terry

  Neubert, Michael

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

  Newton, Tony

  Dover, Den

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Dunn, Robert

  Norris, Steven

  Durant, Tony

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Eyre, Sir Reginald

  Patten, Christopher (Bath)

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Pawsey, James

  Fallon, Michael

  Pollock, Alexander

  Favell, Anthony

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  Powley, John

  Forman, Nigel

  Proctor, K. Harvey

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Raffan, Keith

  Forth, Eric

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Franks, Cecil

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Freeman, Roger

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  Gale, Roger

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Galley, Roy

  Spencer, Derek

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

  Thurnham, Peter

  Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Walden, George

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Hargreaves, Kenneth

  Mr. Michael Portillo and

  Harris, David

  Mr. David Lightbown.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Mr. Fisher: I beg to move amendment No. 30, in page 1, line 15, at end add—
  '(3) The remuneration and other conditions of service of school teachers shall be negotiated by a National Joint Council established by the parties after the making of an Order by the Secretary of State.
  (4) Schedule () has effect with respect to the composition of the National Joint Council and other matters'.
  The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 32, in clause 2, page 1, line 16, leave out from 'appoint' to 'on' in line 18 and insert—

  531
  'a National Joint Council nominated in accordance with Schedule (National Joint Council) to negotiate'.
  No. 45, in page 1, line 20, at end insert—
  'and shall establish a National Joint Council for the purpose of negotiating pay and other conditions of service for all teachers in maintained schools in England and Wales.'.
  No. 49, in page 1, line 23, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
  '(3) The National Joint Council will be composed of representatives of the local education authorities in England and Wales and of the six unions presently represented on the Burnham Primary and Secondary Committee. The balance of representatives on each side will be determined with the assistance of the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service.'.
  No. 91, in page 2, line 4, after 'Committee' insert—
  'or the National Joint Council'.
  No. 104, in page 2, line 12, after 'Committee', insert—
  'and the National Joint Council.'.
  No. 105, in page 2, line 12, leave out subsection (5) and add—
  '(5) It shall thereafter be the duty of the Advisory Committee to report its conclusions on the matters referred to it to the Secretary of State and such body or bodies as may from time be constituted for the negotiation of national collective agreements between teachers and their employers and to advise such body or bodies further in their consideration of such matters.'.
  No. 119, in page 2, line 14, at end add—
  '(6) In drawing up the detailed constitution of the proposed National Joint Council the parties will make arrangements for dealing with local disputes over the interpretation and application of national agreements and for access to those arrangements.'.
  No. 124, in clause 3, page 2, line 15, after 'Committee,' insert—
  'and the National Joint Council.'
  No. 211, in clause 6, page 4, line 2, leave out from beginning to end of line 3, and insert—
  '"National Joint Council" means the National Joint Council on School Teachers Pay and Conditions established under section 1'.
  No. 230, new schedule — Membership of National Joint Council—
  '(1) The National Joint Council ("the Council") shall be comprised of representatives of the local education authorities in England and Wales and the six unions represented before the passage of the Act on the Burnham Primary and Secondary Committee, and the balance of representation on each side shall be determined by the parties until the assistance of the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service.
  (2) The Secretary of State may, with the agreement of the organisations to be represented on the Council, make an Order to provide for the appointment by him of representatives to the Council in such numbers and according to such conditions as he may agree with all the parties.'.
  Mr. Fisher: The amendments continue the debate that we have had on ACAS but in a rather different form. Amendment No. 30 seeks to set up a national joint council and the other amendments take up the detailed arrangements for that and reflect some of our proposals for changing the numbers of those who would participate in the work of the council.
  The debate on ACAS, to which my hon. Friends contributed so fully and interestingly, showed that there were certain differences of opinion about the value of ACAS. Some of my hon. Friends expressed uncertainty about its long-term value because it is a third party in industrial negotiations between unions and employers. These fears are understandable. As my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) said, however, there could often be a constructive and
  532
  useful role for ACAS, and that sometimes where there is a need for arbitration an arbitral body such as ACAS, being a third party, can achieve results that no one else can.
  On the whole, the Opposition believe that, where possible, direct collective bargaining between unions and employers is preferable. We have some reservations about ACAS, though we recognise that in the teachers' dispute, which has continued for some time and where there have been difficulties in coming to decisions on pay and conditions, ACAS has played an invaluable role in bringing parties together. If the Secretary of State had been as constructive in bringing the parties together, we would not be in the present position, leaving aside the issue of when the money might have been provided.
  There are occasions when we feel that ACAS is neither necessary nor appropriate, and we believe that the establishment of a national joint council would provide negotiating machinery for negotiating pay and conditions for all teachers in maintained schools in England and Wales. That form of negotiating machinery would be direct collective bargaining between union and employers and it is one possible answer. The amendments are drawn from the Nottingham agreement, which was arranged under the auspices of ACAS, for the consideration of the Committee. We recognise that we are not proposing the only way in which negotiating machinery can be established, but we believe that a national joint council would be infinitely superior to anything that is provided in the Bill. We believe also that trade unions and employers—the employers include many Conservative-controlled authorities—jointly believe that a national joint council would be much more effective than the Burnham machinery. The Minister of State waxed eloquent on why Burnham has imperfections, but some of the blame must be placed on the Government for interfering in the arbitration role of Burnham.
  5.45 am
  My hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) referred to the reasons why Burnham has failed to come up with the goods and said that as authorities have been rate-capped and cash-limited, Burnham has been unable to operate as an effective deliverer of collective bargaining agreements. If the Secretary of State looks at the history of Burnham before he went to the Department of Education and Science, he will know that the Government have been meddling in the arbitration. For example, they prevented arbitration referrals from either employers or trade unions and said that it had to be the wish of both parties—effectively giving employers a veto over any transfer to arbitration. That is not constructive or helpful. Leaving aside the money problems, it is hardly surprising that Burnham has foundered, given that the Government have been meddling in the arbitration arrangements.
  The unions and the local authorities are agreed that Burnham needs to be replaced. We suggest the national joint council—and join the unions and employers in doing so—as one possible solution. We do not feel that it is the only way, but we seek to propose a machinery that is collective and voluntary, in which the parties can participate and which fairly and democratically represents all the parties involved.
  Dr. Godman: Does my hon. Friend agree that national joint industrial councils play an important role in other industries in helping to establish and maintain good industrial relations between employers and employees?
  Mr. Fisher: I absolutely concur. Being well briefed, I am sure that the Secretary of State has seen the documents put out this afternoon by the NUT, one page of which specifies the multiplicity of industries and sectors that have national joint councils, all of which work pretty well.
  In one of his interesting contributions, my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) quoted from that list, so I shall not weary the Committee by repeating it. If hon. Members are fair-minded they will realise that national joint council exist in a number of sectors and industries—particularly in the public sector—and that they play a valuable role. We seek to extend that machinery to the education service.
  We do not regard that as mischievous. This is not a wrecking amendment. It is genuinely constructive and is put forward with the confidence that on this occasion both the unions and employers feel that it is a constructive way forward. It is also put forward on the understanding that it is not the only way. We would be very happy to consider further amendments from the Government if they found an alternative method that was both democratic and collective.
  Education is undoubtedly a complex service. As the 1944 Act says, it is a national service locally administered. The six unions involved traditionally represent sectors of education that have very different roots and expectations, and often there are different economic circumstances and conditions of service. Indeed, the Nottingham agreement clearly lays down the different conditions for main professional grade, entry grade, deputy heads, heads, and principals. Education is more complicated than most other professions or services. Multiple employers, and the Government having a role, create complex elements in the equation and make education a difficult bargaining area.
  Expertise among those involved is needed. We must come up with the right answers on pay and conditions on a rolling basis. That cannot be left to the Secretary of State and his Civil Service advisers. An advisory committee cannot have any credibility, however good the Secretary of State's intentions, if he appoints its members. The Secretary of State must devise machinery which allows those involved to appoint the members. The Secretary of State is window-dressing and being disingenuous. He is fair-minded and must know that such a committee will not have credibility. Such a complicated service requires those directly involved—the trade unions and the employers—to be directly involved in the negotiating machinery. That is what we seek in a national joint council.
  I have no doubt that the Minister's instructions are to resist our amendment. He will take his troops into the Lobby against us, but what does he think teachers will do if he imposes a settlement and rejects our amendment? How will teachers vent their frustrations democratically? How will they press their views? He is forcing them to continue that which he says he wishes to avoid—further disruption in the classroom. Without joint negotiating machinery with the support and involvement of employers and trade unions there is little alternative to industrial action—classroom action—whether that means working to rule or working to the strict limits of contracts. If the Secretary of State has any sense and can look into the
  534
  future, he will recognise that. But he intends to set up machinery which he knows is not and will not be accepted, which has no credibility and which does not democratically involve the employers and trade unions.
  Many people are happy with the present arrangements, but the Secretary of State will leave them with no option. The right hon. Gentleman might try to gain political capital by saying, "It is disgraceful that teachers, in spite of it all, are taking industrial action." But how else are they to express their grievances? We do not have to agree with those grievances. I do not agree with members of the National Association of Schoolmasters/Union of Women Teachers on some issues, but they hold sincere beliefs which they believe to be important to their colleagues and people working in similar conditions. How does the Secretary of State expect them to express their views fairly and reasonably if he does not set up negotiating machinery which has their confidence, which involves them and which allows them their own representatives? Surely the Secretary of State understands that he is corralling those people into a situation that he would wish to avoid.
  The other amendments deal with the composition of the national joint council. The Secretary of State will have read the document signed by the unions, under the auspices of ACAS, post-Nottingham on 21 November, so I need not weary him with the details of the national joint council, but the unions' agreement foresees representatives of the six unions and of the local authority associations involved.
  The aspect that is not quite so straightforward is the role of the Secretary of State. The Government provide 46·4 per cent. of the money, so it is proper for the Secretary of State to have a role and the document provides for discussions about that role. It does not lay down a template; it is only fair that the Secretary of State should discuss his role with the other partners.
  The Secretary of State is not the only person responsible for education. He says, rather pompously, "I have a responsibility for education and I must fulfil it." But local education authorities have a responsibility that they also contracted at the ballot box, and teachers have a practical responsibility. Those three parties, along with parents and children, have a responsibility for making education work.
  The Bill, and the rejection of the national joint council, will leave everything with the Secretary of State and his appointeees. The Secretary of State cannot say that he is the only person in the country responsible for education. Education is a partnership. Even when the Government force the Bill through and take all the powers, the delivery of education will still have to be a partnership. The best way to make the partnership work and to deliver effective education is to have negotiating machinery that involves all the parties on terms that they accept. The Secretary of State knows that his proposals do not provide for that. If he is a fair man, he will recognise that a national joint council, which is a practical and reasonable suggestion, is an idea that he would be well advised to adopt.
  There is no great political principle involved in the establishment of a national joint council. It is not a terrible political trick to sidetrack the Secretary of State or to strip him of his responsibilities and involvement. The right hon. Gentleman must recognise that the local authorities, which provide 54·6 of the cost of teachers' salaries, also have a responsibility and he must join them in a partnership if he is to deliver something effective.

  535
  If we were a Standing Committee and had time for representations to be made to the Secretary of State our uncontentious amendments might be accepted. The Secretary of State would lose nothing by accepting the amendment and he would gain credibility and send a message to employers and teachers that they had a role alongside him in negotiations and that that role should be incorporated in negotiating machinery that everybody accepted. If the right hon. Gentleman genuinely wants peace he will seek a partnership and compromise along those lines. If he rejects that, parents and teachers will have to conclude that he does not seriously want peace.
  6 am
  Mr. Kenneth Baker: The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) who moved the amendment, said that these matters relate to the second set of amendments that we debated earlier with regard to ACAS. They cover much the same ground as the first set of amendments on the negotiating position after the Bill is passed. The hon. Gentleman put a strong case for a joint negotiating council. One must query the criteria and conditions for the establishment of such a negotiating council. One must work from a pragmatic base.
  In the previous debate on FE, the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) put forward the argument that the Government would go along with a joint negotiating council for FE, but not for teachers. Why not? To find the answer to that question, one has to examine what a joint negotiating council for teachers and FE has resulted in. The record of success of the joint negotiating council, which is broadly what Burnham is, has not—
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: No.
  Mr. Baker: I shall pursue my argument in my own way. All hon. Members agree that conditions should be negotiated together with pay. Looking back upon the Bill of 1965, it now seems quite barmy that they were separated. If hon. Members consider what has happened when there has been, in effect, a joint working party over the course of the past year, outside the umbrella of the concordat, they will see what sort of record of success there has been. One cannot say that it has been a successful record. In Coventry, an agreement was initialled by five unions. They were asked to develop it, work it out and work it up. Straight away, I was asked to sign up for it. As the process of working it up and talking together proceeded, the unions started to break away from it. A meeting was called in Nottingham, which then went to London and resulted in the document of 21 November, which four unions signed. Although the hon. Gentleman calls it an agreement, he knows that it is supported by only two unions.
  Mr. Radice: Which represented the majority of the teachers.
  Mr. Baker: The hon. Gentleman made that point, but in the middle of November, he said, "It is supported by the majority of the unions." In fact, the NUT advertisement that appeared in the press two days ago erroneously referred to it in similar terms. I am sure that the editors got the copy and got it in place before they knew what happened last Friday and Saturday. I do not accuse the publishers of being deliberately misleading. They were overtaken by events. The history of this sorry saga is that one is overtaken by events. Now, two unions remain fully
  536
  signed up. They are holding ballots. One does not know what the result of those ballots will be. The unions are deeply divided.
  This Monday an advertisement appeared in The Guardian. It had been put in by that part of the NUT that is against the NUT's policy. Basically, it is the Inner London Teachers Association, but I think that it has wider support than that. That group is campaigning for a "Vote No" in the NUT ballot.
  Mr. Radice: That is democracy.
  Mr. Baker: Of course it is. I do not deny that. It shows that the NUT, which has campaigned strongly for this agreement and has probably dominated the discussions leading to it, has a group within it which goes to press to say:
  "If the deal were accepted it would worsen the working conditions of every teacher and cause 1,000s to leave altogether."
  The group says that the deal involves "illusory gains", "jam tomorrow", "Baker's dozen", and all the rest of it.
  Mr. Flannery: I think I told the right hon. Gentleman that I was at the NUT conference. It should be made clear that at that conference the NUT voted on the employers' offer. That had nothing to do with the Government. The Government should not take comfort from what the Secretary of State is saying, because there is not the slightest difference between the two sides in their opposition to the Government. They differ on the employers' offer, but they are totally united in their opposition to the Government.
  Mr. Baker: That position has yet to be made clear. We know that the hon. Gentleman is an assiduous supporter of the NUT. At that conference the motion only just squeaked through, with 55 per cent., and a ballot is now being held.
  The profession is divided on this matter. Individual unions are divided. If Labour Members say that the joint negotiating council, or joint working party—call it what one will—is what they want, they must be able to show that it works effectively. For the past year, there has been something very close to the joint negotiating council—
  Mr. Fisher: Come on.
  Mr. Baker: With respect, the machinery has been working closely since 1985 on the basis of the joint negotiating council. It has not led to resolution because not only the unions but the employers are divided. The Labour employers have been fairly united and consistent, led by Councillor Pearman. The alliance expressed misgivings at certain stages, but I think that in the end it voted for the 21 November agreement, so it is party to an agreement that is falling about its ears. The Conservatives walked out, walked back again and then walked out again. The Conservative employers announced that they would not support that agreement.
  Mr. Spearing: There may have been difficulties in the past few months. The right hon. Gentleman said that the unions are divided, but we are talking about the proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) for a national joint council. Can the right hon. Gentleman say that the professional associations and the employers are on record as being against the proposal that is at the heart of amendment No.

  537
  30? The right hon. Gentleman has to prove that they are, not that they are divided about his proposals or the present structure. That is not what the amendment proposes.
  Mr. Baker: I was coming to that. Obviously, I shall refer to the words in the so-called agreement of 21 November. It states:
  "The NJC will be composed of representatives of the local education authorities in England and Wales and of the six unions presently represented on the Burnham Primary and Secondary Committee."
  I accept that they want some form of joint negotiating council. Four unions have signed up for it. The 21 November document goes on to say—this is the difficult part for the unions—
  "The parties will seek discussions with the Secretary of State on his role in the new machinery."
  So far, the unions have not sought to do that. Those that have come to see me have not raised the issue of future negotiation. I dare say that they will. One group is coming to see me on Friday and another next week, and I am sure that the matter will come up. The nub of representation on the joint negotiating council is how it should be determined. There has been a High Court action. Those who defend Burnham, and who would defend this type of operation, would be able to say that it did work in a period when one union ruled the roost. The NUT did rule the roost and thereby imposed a degree of unity on the unions by sheer numbers.
  Mr. Flannery: Sheer numbers is democracy.
  Mr. Baker: I put it to the hon. Gentleman that all those other unions that felt that they were being dragged along in the negotiating process may not have felt the great advantages of that form of democracy. That is one reason why, during the past 15 or 20 years—the hon. Gentleman wants to call them professional associations and they certainly started as that—the dominance of one union on Burnham exacerbated the intense union rivalries which have embittered the entire teaching profession, to the extent that a great membership battle is going on. The unions jealously guard their numbers and watch carefully whether the membership of the AMMA or the NAS/UWT is increasing, or the membership of the NUT is decreasing. The reduction in NUT membership reduced its representation on the Burnham committees. Therefore, the way in which it would be represented on a joint negotiating council is an important matter that is left rather vague.
  Paragraph 7.4 deals with the role of the Secretary of State. Again, that is vaguely expressed. There is a recognition that the Secretary of State should have a role. Should there be weighted voting, as in Burnham, or should he have an explicit veto, as there was with the concordat? Of course, the concordat was torn up.
  There are substantial practical problems that have not been resolved—
  Mr. Radice: The Secretary of State is saying that the difficulties in the teaching profession and in education are so immense that what might be a solution anywhere else—presumably he would support that solution—just will not work. The Secretary of State said that he was responsible for education. That is the great message. Of course, he is. What is he doing to ensure that those
  538
  problems are overcome? He cannot pretend that taking all the powers to himself will produce a more united teaching profession—
  Mr. Fisher: United against him.
  Mr. Radice: —except against him, and a more united local authority grouping. Or does he suggest that this interim solution will be in place for ever?
  Mr. Baker: In answer to the hon. Gentleman's question about what I am doing, may I say that the first thing I am doing is introducing the Bill in an attempt to resolve a difficult problem. It is recognised as a difficult problem, with no easy answer. Had there been a easy answer, it would have been resolved much earlier; not in the past two or three years, but some time in the 1970s.
  We had a statutory Burnham negotiating committee with the concordat. That gave the Government control over the total cost of pay settlements and a strong influence over the pay structure—not a determinant, but a strong influence. The committee dealt with pay alone, and it was not a successful arrangement. More recently, we have had the Burnham committee without the concordat, as a result of the unilateral decision by the local authority associations. The Government were patient and waited to see how that might work. My predecessor was patient—
  Mr. Radice: Answer the question.
  Mr. Baker: I am just coming to the answer. My predecessor was patient, and that was unsuccessful. A joint working party, was set up by the unions and the associations represented on Burnham to consider both pay and conditions of service. The Government were present, but with limited voting power. The working party was not successful.
  Then we had the reference to ACAS earlier this year, and negotiations were carried out with its help and guidance. There has been some useful progress, but we still do not have sufficient agreement of total cost, including pay structure, teachers' duties and conditions of service.
  Mr. Radice: When will the Minister answer the question?
  Mr. Baker: I am about to turn over a page. When I reach the next page, the hon. Gentleman will hear all the answers there. Nor do we yet have the proposals for future negotiating arrangements. That is the background against which the Bill has been prepared. It provides for the establishment of an interim advisory committee. I emphasise that it is interim.
  All the interests concerned will be able to offer that committee views—the unions, the local authority employers and other interested bodies. The Secretary of State will be required to consult the local authorities and the teachers' unions before giving effect to recommendations from the committee, whether or not he judges it necessary to give effect to the recommendations in modified form. That is clause 3(1), to which we shall come later.
  6.15 am
  In all this there is nothing to prevent the unions and the local authorities working together and offering agreed evidence to the advisory committee or to the Secretary of State. If they wish, they can do that. They can negotiate together and present a united front.

  539
  Finally, the Secretary of State will have to submit his conclusions to Parliament before giving effect to them. Nothing could be more democratic than that.
  Mr. Radice: The Secretary of State has cleverly ducked my question, as he pretty well does all the time. How does he think that that will bring the union side together with the employers side, except, perhaps, in hostility to himself? What does he think will happen then? If it is an interim arrangement, he is obliged to tell us what will happen after 1990.
  Mr. Baker: I have been asked by the hon. Gentleman several times now whether I agree with collective bargaining. If collective bargaining is effective and all the parties are involved, one should obviously try to find a way to achieve that.
  Mr. Fisher: What is meant by "effective"?
  Mr. Baker: For management to resolve a dispute in less than five years would be effective.
  The review of the structure of the salary and profession started in 1981 and it went on until 1984–85.
  Mr. Fisher rose—
  Mr. Baker: I am still trying to reply to the hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice), but I shall do the hon. Gentleman first.
  Mr. Fisher: I shall be most grateful if the Secretary of State will do me first. Perhaps he will answer my question, which he has not yet heard, first. He said that there was nothing to prevent the unions and teachers negotiating together and then presenting joint evidence to the advisory committee, but he has just told the Committee how extremely difficult it has been for them to negotiate with formal machinery. How does he expect them to negotiate satisfactorily in order to form joint evidence with no machinery whatever?
  Mr. Baker: They can do that themselves. After all, that is what we have just approved for further education. If they want to discuss together, they can, and not only regarding the presentation of evidence, but in the subsequent phase where I have to consult both the unions and the local education authorities. One knows perfectly well that that will be a form of intense discussion and consultation, because there will be proposals from the interim advisory committee and there will no doubt also be proposals from the unions and possibly from local authority employers. The resolution of that will have to be determined by the House. How much more democratic can we get? Hon. Members cannot dismiss the House of Commons and say that the present procedure, as Labour Members well know, involves no parliamentary process for the implementation of the findings of the Burnham committee. I issue orders and that is that. We are providing for a parliamentary process similar to that.
  The hon. Member for Durham, North asked about the interim position. It may well be that one will be able to move towards a form of joint negotiations after a period of an interim committee, but that will have to await the outturn of events. The other view, as some people have already advocated to me, is that there should be a fully fledged and independent review body. That view has been put to me by some members of the profession.
  It is sensible for the Government to proceed with the measure and to establish the interim advisory committee
  540
  as a means of trying to resolve what has been an exceptionally difficult process of negotiating a settlement between six unions which have different views and profoundly different interests. Successive Governments, Labour as well as Conservative, have never seen fit, or have never been able, to relax their control over the cost of the overall settlement. That is quite understandable. It is not just a question of the 46·4 per cent. There is also a commitment of resources through public expenditure allocations to the local authorities. I do not believe that a joint council would work at this stage. That is why we have suggested an interim advisory committee, and I commend it to the Committee.
  Mr. Spearing: The Committee's deliberations have reached a very interesting stage. One of the advantages of our parliamentary procedure is that the strength of Parliament can be displayed, even though it is 6.20 am. I appreciated the Secretary of State's apparently reasonable and philosophical tone. Gone are the great polemics of substitute Second Reading speeches in the glare of "Today in Parliament." We are now much closer to reality. For the first time in months I have a twinge of sympathy for the Secretary of State—
  Dr. Godman: No, do not have any sympathy for him.
  Mr. Spearing: I am dissuaded by my hon. Friend. However, the Secretary of State was pitched into this position and found himself floundering among the extraordinary machinery that he has inherited. Therefore, he decided to bring down his sword of Damocles by introducing this Bill.
  We have just had a fairly wide-ranging review of how to find a way out of this mess. My hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) suggested a joint council. He has skilfully inserted into a not very good Bill the means of converting the present machinery into something that is entirely new that does not require the Secretary of State to decide and then to obtain parliamentary approval.
  I draw the attention of the Secretary of State and the Committee to the fact that this problem is not new. Far from there being fundamentally new problems, the old ones are still with us. However, instead of dealing with them constructively, as the amendment does, the Secretary of State has skilfully exacerbated the difficulties and let the milk boil over before deciding to turn off the gas.
  I should like the Secretary of State to answer the charge of the Association of County Councils. I do not think that the Government believe that the Association of County Councils is irresponsible. The Government may hold certain views about some teachers' associations and some local authorities. We do not share the Government's views, but their attitude has been made plain. However, I should not have thought that it extended to the Association of County Councils.
  In its communication the Association of County Councils says that it has argued for many years for the repeal of the 1965 Act which it believes has
  "inhibited proper negotiations of teachers' salaries".
  The Secretary of State has opposed changes that would have allowed effective negotiations to take place.
  What is the Secretary of State's answer to the very serious charges that have been made by an important employers' association? Apart from the different employees' associations that came into existence for understandable, functional and historic reasons, as I

  541
  showed in my contribution of about 12 hours ago, there are different associations of employers, each of which has its own particular and rightful place in the machinery.
  The ACC goes on to say:
  "The Government has hitherto consistently refused to agree to the employers' request for legislation to improve the negotiating arrangements."
  The employers know a little more about education than the Secretary of State and the inhabitants of Elizabeth house. I do not blame them for that; it is in the nature of the national education machine. Here employers are using their proper role and responsibly saying that the Government have refused to agree to improvements in the legislative machinery. The Government have a responsibility to tell us—I do not think they have told us—why they have not responded at least to the employers' request in the past few months and years. There is an answer to that question, which I shall not pursue now. It does not show the Government in a good light. Perhaps it will be more appropriate to pursue it later.
  I refer to the efficacy of the joint council that we are now discussing. The real parameters of the problem have not been changed. The forces in the education world that are moving in that area have not changed over the years. They have been present in some form since 1944, and were certainly present in 1965 when the present legislation was introduced. It is to the 1965 Act that I want to turn the attention of the Government. I ask for their reply to the points that I shall make.
  It was on 20 November 1964 that Mr. Michael Stewart introduced the present legislation, which the Secretary of State has claimed is outdated and will not work. It was introduced on a Friday. The debate started at about 11 am and finished at 3.15 pm. There was no vote. The 1965 legislation was agreed because, as was amply demonstrated during debate, the Bill was drafted by the then Conservative Government and Sir Edward Boyle, and introduced by Michael Stewart. The elements that are now facing us faced them. For the first time, the Minister introduced his own representatives en masse into the Burnham committee. He said, "I shall have 15 of the 26 representatives of the employers on the employers' panel." That was a big change, but it was reckoned to be fair by everybody concerned because, as we have heard today, the Minister, as an employer, claims rights of representation on the employers' panel. But the conditions of their presence and what they were there for were carefully laid down.
  I should like to quote in full something that Mr. Michael Stewart said on that occasion because I believe that the Secretary of State—I am glad that he is still with us—has misused what Mr. Stewart was saying at that time. It relates to the importance and presence of the Secretary of State's representatives on that panel. Mr. Stewart said:
  "The Bill provides for the contingency that exceptional circumstances might justify the rejection of the arbitrators' recommendation. But to limit the use of this power and to safeguard against its abuse the Bill provides two separate safeguards. First, the decision to use it is vested not in the Secretary of State, but in Parliament"—
  the Secretary of State referred to that—
  "and it requires the affirmative action and not merely the acquiescence of each House separately. Secondly, the criterion by
  542
  which Parliament must judge a proposal to reject the arbitrators' recommendations is whether national economic circumstances require it.
  The effect of that is that the circumstances must be economic. They must not be purely educational in character."
  6.30 am
  In other words, when the present machinery was installed, both sides of the House said, "Parliament must have the last say. The Secretary of State can reject a long series of negotiations and arbitrators' proposals but, if he does, the last ditch refusal must be based not in educational matters, arguments about distribution in particular, but related to national economic circumstances." We now understand that the rejection, not of the arbitration result but the so-called ACAS agreement, is not connected with national economic circumstances. The Secretary of State has not claimed that. He has claimed that it is to do with his view of the needs of education at the time. He may feel justified in doing that. He has pressed it very hard.
  Mr. Kenneth Baker indicated assent.
  Mr. Spearing: I am glad to have the Secretary of State's confirmation. In doing that, he breaks with the accord of 1965, which said that the long-stop device should be related only to national economic matters.
  It was not only Mr. Stewart who said that. A leading member of the Government at that time was Mr. Christopher Chataway. Mr. Chataway, alas no longer with us, had long experience in education as a member and leader of the Inner London education authority.
  During the course of the debate, Mr. Chataway said:
  "On the question of the overall total cost, the ultimate say rests with the Secretary of State. I was glad that he made the point today that there would not be any question of the Secretary of State's representatives coming along and issuing an ultimatum at the start of the talks. Clearly, that would be wrong. It would not be acceptable if the Secretary of State's representatives were to come to the Committee and say, 'it is to be £50 million. We have decided on the figure, and now what we are going to negotiate about is the way in which it is going to be distributed.' When my right hon. and learned Friend met the teachers' associations and the local authorities in September he made it clear that he, too, was not suggesting any such system."—[Official Report, 20 November 1964; Vol. 702, c. 794–803.]
  When he referred to his right hon. and learned Friend, he was, of course, talking about Mr. Quintin Hogg.
  In 1964 when the Bill, which was to become the Remuneration of Teachers Act 1965, began its passage, neither side of the House saw the power that the Secretary of State is now, in effect, using as one that related to negotiation and internal distribution.
  When I say that we are still on the same psychological parameters today as then, the Secretary of State will now know what I mean. He will say that conditions have changed, that things have been fouled up and that the associations, as I prefer to call them, have fallen out among themselves, and so on. I have to remind him that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, because in 1964 the representation of the Secretary of State on Burnham was justified morally and in common sense by the fact that it was claimed, without any dispute, that 60 per cent. of the salary was paid by the Exchequer.
  What has happened since then? Because of the change in the rate support grant arrangements and the attitude of the Government to local government as a whole, that 60 per cent. has been much reduced. A figure of about 44 per

  543
  cent. or, at most, 50 per cent., no doubt varying from county to county and LEA to LEA, comes to mind. Certainly conditions have changed but the arithmetic about the representation on Burnham has not. I wonder whether there would have been a difference under Burnham if the 15 representatives had been reduced pro rata with the input from central Government. That might be an argument, but I am not making it. I am saying that the real psychological parameters in the whole bag of tricks are much as they were in 1965 and that the structure then created would have worked if those involved had wished it to do so.
  That brings me back to the fundamental point that education in national negotiations, like education in the classroom, depends upon the will of those in the ring to reach an agreement. Any one of the three elements can at any time play a mischievous part and prevent such agreement from being reached. As my earlier quotation showed, even the Association of County Councils believes that the Secretary of State has played a part in preventing agreement. At any rate, the association wants a change in the machinery and we have yet to hear why that has not been accepted.
  I shall prove my point by a quotation from Mr. Quintin Hogg when he was Minister of State. He is now Lord Chancellor, and thus a member of the Cabinet which no doubt approved this Bill, reluctantly or otherwise, with or without discussion. I can certainly imagine some of the dramatis personae in that argument. We do not even know which side the Secretary of State was on. I wonder what the Lord Chancellor said in Cabinet on this occasion. In November 1964, he said:
  "The first point that I would seek to make is that this debate illustrates something which I have said on many occasions, and that is both the folly and, in the end, the corrupting nature of any attempt to bring the education service too strongly in the path of politics. I have always tried to pursue, in relation to education, as detached a view as I could and I think that this is a proper approach to the matter."—[Official Report, 20 November 1964; Vol. 702, c. 833.]
  So say many of us here.
  It is the path of politcs, to quote a useful phrase which may even come to the aid of the Secretary of State when he is protecting education, which has brought us to this sorry state. If the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor, the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph), had not pressed what we saw as the path of politics far too strongly in negotiations in the past few years, the existing machinery could and would have worked. Pressing the path of politics too strongly has caused the present foul-up. All would have been well had not the path of politcs intruded into machinery that was never intended to cope with it. We have Lord Hailsham's authority for that.
  Amendment No. 30, so ably proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central. (Mr. Fisher), offers the Secretary of State another path. The Bill, curiously enough, follows much the same structure as its two predecessors. Its centrepiece is Parliament's final approval, by order, as it has been since 1963, but the content of the order should result from the national joint council and not the old style Burnham committee. There is a very big difference. The Secretary of State did less than justice to the proposal when he referred to the joint council being composed in a rather vague way. I made a dissenting
  544
  noise at that point because he was not giving sufficient weight to the proposals in amendment 49, which is also in this group.
  Amendment No. 49 says:
  "The National Joint Council will be composed of representatives of the local education authorities in England and Wales and of the six unions presently represented on the Burnham Primary and Secondary Committee. The balance of representatives on each side will be determined with the assistance of the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service."
  The Bill proposes no automatic arithmetical proportionate membership such as we have now. Whether that is right or wrong is another matter. The amendment proposes that the balance of representatives on the national joint council should be established by some form of mutual conciliation. It is up to the Secretary of State to table further amendments if he wants to decide how the balance will be struck, but with the help of ACAS. What I imagine will be a relatively small body should reflect a balance of interests, including the panel of employers' representatives.
  Mr. Kenneth Baker: The hon. Gentleman is highlighting the difficulty of the problem. He speaks of the assistance of ACAS, but suppose the unions do not agree with its advice and there is no agreement about how many representatives there should be of each union. ACAS has tried to find an agreement since the beginning of the year, but there has been none among the unions. What leads the hon. Gentleman to suppose that, when trying to establish the balance of power—a critical issue—the unions are likely to agree with what ACAS recommends? The same is true for the employers. The hon. Gentleman's optimism is overcoming experience.
  Mr. Spearing: I suggest that it is the Secretary of State's pessimism—and especially that of his predecessor—which prevented the existing machinery from working. I do not pretend that the answer is easy. That is why I welcome the philosophical and thorough approach of the amendments. Perhaps both sides are a little closer on an analysis of the problem, although they have not reached accord on the optimum solution.
  Dr. Godman: I readily accept that there have been formidable problems with the Burnham committee. The problem of the balance of power has been experienced by many national joint industrial councils and in many cases it has been resolved to the qualified satisfaction of those involved.
  Mr. Spearing: That is a helpful intervention. We have here a problem which often arises in the House. It is the least worst solution. People often complain about our procedures and say that they are arcane, difficult and illogical, and ask why we go through the night debating a vital matter. We all know that we often come up with the least worst solution.
  The Secretary of State has fairly and rightly drawn attention to some of the difficulties. He may be right, but if his chosen path is not right, we should stick with the machinery that we have got and not act like the sorcerer's apprentice.
  The existing machinery is by no means perfect, and most hon. Members want to change it. It may be that there is only one alternative to the draconian power that the

  545
  Secretary of State is trying to take or the pro rata of Burnham. The proposal of the joint council might work better than the present machinery.
  6.45 am
  In two years' time, the Secretary of State will have to produce another Bill. I suspect that many of his hon. Friends support him because they can say that while the Bill is outrageous in what it proposes, it cuts the Gordian knot and gets the schools back to work and gives them time to think up some better form. Perhaps there is not one. Perhaps the best way to go about it is along lines similar to those laid down in the 1965 Act, perhaps amended slightly, but with an understanding from each of the three partners inside their own groupings, which means inside the Cabinet and inside the Government, that they do not mess up and go down the path of politics referred to by the Lord Chancellor. That would be self-restraint from the Government, as there would have to be from the employees, that they would not play too much among themselves. There may be a feeling of constraint among the employers, the county councils and other authorities that they must not play too great a part in this difficult tripod of our education structure. In the end, that may be the only way in which it can be done. If that is shown to be true, it will prove that in this sector one cannot use the usual rules of industrial arbitration, or the usual rules of statute.
  Everything starts on atmosphere. Everything begins and ends on the invisible threads of personal relationships, which occur inside a classroom, a school, the local education authority, the Cabinet and the minds and hearts of those involved in education. The Secretary of State should consider this proposal and say why it cannot work. Instead of looking at alternatives to the present structure, he has chosen the sword. In the end, the sword will not flourish and cannot succeed in this educational quagmire.
  Dr. Godman: I speak in support of amendment Nos. 30 and 49. My support for the amendments stems from my belief that it is almost always the case that employers possess much more power than employee associations, or trade unions. That holds true as much for those employed in the education system as for those in manufacturing industry. I also believe that a formal structure of collective bargaining is an essential element in the development of good industrial relations. I would have thought that all of us here are concerned with the development of good, co-operative relations between employers and trade unionists.
  By power, I mean where an individual or group has the ability or means to coerce others into complying with instructions, even though such compliance may conflict with the interest of those in the subordinate position in the relationship. One has to acknowledge that within the teaching unions as with others, there is a distribution of power among those trade unionists. A national joint industrial council can play a powerful role in the establishment and maintenance of good industrial relations, and there is a great deal of evidence from other industries to support this assertion. One thinks of the work carried out for many years by the national joint industrial council for the fishing industry. There are national councils responsible for collective bargaining about terms and conditions of employment in a range of industries extending from defence to private industries such as
  546
  shipbuilding and engineering. I have mentioned the council that existed for a time for the fishing industry and one thinks also of the council for those employed in the maritime auxiliary services.
  Many personnel managers and senior managers involved in collective bargaining prefer to deal with organised labour within a framework of national joint industrial councils. I think that the Donovan committee in its report published, if I remember rightly, in 1968 pointed to the formal and informal systems of collective bargaining.
  Mr. Fatchett: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Dr. Godman: I shall in a moment. In cases where there is a clash between the formal and informal systems, one often sees a worsening of industrial relations. For example, if the informal system predominates, it is almost inevitable that industrial relations will be much less co-operative and much more unprincipled.
  Mr. Fatchett: My hon. Friend says personnel managers have a current preference for the bargaining structure about which he speaks. He will note, if he adds a historical perspective to his analysis of the development of collective bargaining, that it was Government through the initial Whitley reports who advocated structures such as the national joint councils. It was the espousal by private industry of the Whitley report that led to the creation of NJICs in many industries. Therefore, there is a long history of public policy advocating the sort of machinery spelt out in this set of amendments.
  Dr. Godman: I am conscious of the history of national joint industrial councils, but I had better not go down that road. The national joint industrial council for the fishing industry was introduced to an industry characterised by casual employment and with the worst group of employers in the history of modern British industrial relations. Nevertheless, that council imposed a system of order on the fragmented processes of collective bargaining in the deep-sea fishing industry. In talking about teachers and their employers we are talking about an entirely different system of collective bargaining. Nevertheless, the principle is the same.
  Mr. Spearing: Mr. Whitley was the Speaker of the House of Commons and the analogy that I attempted to draw between atmosphere, decision, and the procedures in the House of Commons and the self-disciplines of national joint bargaining are not coincidental: they are fundamental. I think that my hon. Friend has helped the Committee a great deal in suggesting that the stage at which teachers' bargaining has arrived may be, paradoxically, at an earlier stage in the cycle of evolution of national joint bargaining than that which has been reached in some other industries. It may be also that the Secretary of State should learn from that.
  Dr. Godman: It seems that teachers—
  Mr. Fatchett: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Dr. Godman: I ask my hon. Friend to let me get into my stride first.
  It seems that teachers and their representatives have to make difficult choices and will have to accept that, but that is the essence of collective bargaining. Both sides must accept that which they would rather dismiss. The hawkish lot on the Government Benches seem to think that a

  547
  national joint council would go beyond democratic compromise, but it is in the nature of national joint councils that agreements are hammered out. It is my experience that by and large they are honoured.
  Mr. Fatchett: I realise that my hon. Friend has moved on in the development of his argument. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) has said that a Mr. Whitley was Speaker of the House of Commons, it may be useful, as a Yorkshireman, to remind my hon. Friend that Mr. Whitley was a Yorkshireman and represented a Yorkshire constituency. The links with the argument that he is advancing are traditional and personal.
  Dr. Godman: I think that the links may be somewhat tenuous. I am a Yorkshireman who for a long time has been domiciled in Scotland with, happily again, a Scottish wife and family.
  I would wish to leave Mr. Speaker Whitley behind, though he has an honourable place in history. I believe that it is essential to have a structure for collective bargaining in education, and that with a formal structure it is possible to encourage some local autonomy. A national joint council composed of employers' representatives and teachers, representatives as outlined in amendment No. 49 is the way ahead if our objective is good industrial relations.
  The Secretary of State observed in an intervention that some teachers' unions are unwilling to accept what he might call the democratic share of the representation on such a council. It seems that this is an area where ACAS has an important role to play. I spoke about ACAS earlier, and I believe that it could resolve, for example, initial conflicts of view and objectives at once. I believe genuinely that such conflicts would be resolved with the assistance of industrial relations specialists.
  These are useful amendments on the composition of a national joint council. It could be that for one or two years the chairman of the NJC, as envisaged in the amendments, would be a local authority councillor, with a teacher, or teacher's representative, taking on the role of deputy chairman. Once their periods of office expired, these roles would be reversed so that for one or two years the teacher would become the chairman. That is an established practice with many national joint industrial councils, and I can think of no reason why the procedure of alternating chairmen should not be established for a national council dealing with teachers.
  7 am
  As with other national joint industrial councils, tough negotiations would be conducted by both sides at the monthly or quarterly meetings of the council, but agreements would have to be reached and, as elsewhere, both sides would have to make concessions. That is at the heart of industrial relations, and that is what we mean by collective bargaining—that, as is customary in collective bargaining elsewhere, concessions are made to achieve agreements that are binding on both sides.
  It would be possible to arrive at a sensible composition of teacher and employer representatives on such a council. I support the amendments because of the need for a formal collective bargaining structure, such as that determined to a large extent by such a council. The Secretary of State will reject them, but national joint councils have an important
  548
  part to play in many of our industries, and such a council could play a valuable role in collective bargaining between teachers and their employers.
  Mr. Flannery: In his reply to the amendments, which I support, the Minister lingered lovingly over splits among the teachers. Of course there are splits. No one is more aware of that than we are. There have always been splits, although these have recently been accentuated simply because they always occur in struggles.
  Unlike the Minister, we do not rejoice about this, because it creates terrible problems. It was significant that in an intervention in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) the Minister again entered that arena. He just cannot stay clear of it. There is something about this subject that gives the Minister pleasure, and he cannot help exulting about it. It is all grist to his mill of anti-democracy.
  When the Minister talked about the difference in the composition of the JNC, he laboured mightily to try to prove that it was not possible for the local education authorities and the six unions, under guidance from ACAS, to arrive at a reasonably acceptable democratic conclusion. There is always difficulty with such matters, but the Minister is determined to highlight the difficulties in order to justify the destruction of any democratic negotiation.
  Local education authorities are elected bodies which have had a long struggle to achieve democracy. They are the best that we can manage. All hon. Members know about the long struggle to establish trade unions. The Combination Acts stopped the trade unions in the early years. We still rejoice in the Tolpuddle martyrs and celebrate them every year. Democracy is a long and continuing process.
  On Monday I mentioned Winston Churchill, who said words to the effect that democracy is awkward and unwieldy but the best thing we have. Indeed it is. Anything that violates democracy will ultimately be found out. There is no doubt about that. In the long term the antidemocratic people will be defeated. In the meantime they will cause misery, and unnecessary problems will be heaped upon us. They will cause trouble for the Minister, for us, the children and for everyone concerned.
  I am sure that all hon. Members have a copy of the ILEA brief, section 3 of which states:
  "The Bill replaces, therefore, the Burnham Primary and Secondary Committee set up by the Remuneration of Teachers Act 1965. Although the Bill does not explicitly remove the rights of collective bargaining … there will, for practical purposes, be no forum for this to occur. Any agreement could be overridden by the Secretary of State. It is quite clear that he will immediately use the powers in the Bill to impose a settlement to the current dispute without reference to the Advisory Committee and rely on the Advisory Committee operating under directions issued by him in future years."
  That is the nub and essence of the Bill.
  Mr. Corbyn: The Minister seems to be lacking faith in his own judgment, because although he has not yet appointed the advisory committee he has already ridden over a decision which it might have had the opportunity to take. Is that not an unpalatable prospect for anyone looking for a job on his advisory committee?
  Mr. Flannery: I agree, but even deeper than that is that, after long struggles, we now live in a democracy. Dictatorship comes about because the old rulers can no

  549
  longer rule in the old way and because the people are no longer willing to be ruled in the old way. Leaders take over and dictatorship is established.
  We live in a democracy. For a Minister or Government to take short cuts with democracy, in a democracy, after a long struggle is disgraceful. That is being done to save what amounts to petty cash. In this case we are talking about saving £80 million. That is even more serious when there is no obvious regret by those who are engaging in anti-democratic methods. Instead, for some curious reason, the Minister seems to take joy in what he is doing.
  Our task is to foil the Secretary of State in every possible way. We could give hostages to fortune because if the right hon. Gentleman treats these amendments with the contempt with which he has treated everything else, he will be conniving in allowing an area of democracy to slide away. That would strengthen the hand of those who would take further short cuts and go on to invade other areas. It would become a wide-ranging attack on the unions and democracy in education.
  The Secretary of State was asked earlier what the advisory committee will do when he has used the elected dictatorship which conciously violates democracy. Even though there is a counting of heads. The right hon. Gentleman said that it would be difficult to get a range of democratic bodies to agree on setting up a democratic committee to continue democracy and negotiation. We all know that there would be difficulties, but we should try to overcome them.
  When the Secretary of State hand-picks a group of people, including the chairman and deputy chairman of the advisory committee, that might be easy, but they will merely carry out his orders. The most that they can do is to reflect some ideas that they might glean from talking to elected groups. That will have little or no impact on getting the money that is necessary to educate our children, or in securing peace in our schools and all the things that Labour Members want, but which Tory Members, most of whom went to public school and do not understand the state education system, only say that they want. In fact, they want peace through a dictatorial attack on the education system and a deprivation of money.
  The attitude of the Minister, as he lies there with his sleeping pack behind him, is one of utter contempt. The right hon. Gentleman is not sleeping. He is showing us that he is not even interested in what we are saying. Although we shall not win the vote, we shall win the argument and our case will become reality, because the difficulties will be so tremendous that something will happen and make what happened to Chirac look like a tea party. [Interruption.] I must object to the interruptions of hon. Members beyond the Bar. They are not officially in the Chamber and if they want to come in they should do so.
  Mr. Allen McKay: I am pleased that we have woken up some Conservative Members. It is nice to know that we are speaking to people who are listening—even though only three Conservative Members are left after our long and laborious night.
  Mr. Fatchett: It has been extremely enjoyable.
  Mr. McKay: And informative, too. We have reached the nitty gritty of our amendments, and the Secretary of State's attitude reminds me of something that happened
  550
  when I went on a parliamentary visit to the United States to study democracy in local government. We visited one place where we saw a cross between a quiz and a galactic war. It was in Dallas. Only Texans would build things like that, anyway. The people in the auditorium could have five minutes to speak on the subject under discussion. The chairman said to me, "This is democracy at work. All the people here can have a say. They will please themselves what they do." That is what the Secretary of State will do. He will become judge and jury. He will pay them and guide them.
  7.15 am
  Subsection (2) states:
  The Secretary of State shall appoint an Advisory Committee on School Teachers' Pay and Conditions to examine and report to him on such matters relating to the remuneration and other conditions of employment of school teachers in England and Wales …
  The Secretary of State may give directions to the Committee with respect to matters referred to them".
  Following a direction from the person who set it up, the committee will consider wages and conditions of service
  "and financial or other constraints to which their recommendations are subject".
  The Secretary of State will not only set up the committee and give it directions, but will tell it how much it can spend. He will take away any semblance of free collective bargaining, of which the Government are supposed to be the champions.
  I am bothered about the education of children. That is what the argument is about. My constituents are fed up to their teeth with children constantly being sent home from school when their parents are at work. More serious is the interruption to children's education. The Secretary of State's proposals will worsen the position. I hope that I will be proved wrong and the Secretary of State will be proved right. However, in correcting the problem, he will also create another wrong.
  In the years that I worked as an industrial relations officer, I found that if impositions do work, they worked for only a short time. The problem was caused by the Government, who have cut local government and education finances. The Secretary of State knows that had extra money been provided when he became Secretary of State we would not be debating this matter until this hour, because there would have been no problem. The denial of the money caused the problem in the first place. By using his powers, the Secretary of State will cause problems for many years to come. With the return of a Labour Government, we shall get rid of them anyway. If the Prime Minister is right about the timing of the election, we shall debate this matter again and again.
  If the Secretary of State is heavy handed and acts in a dictatorial manner, he will destroy an element of democracy which we cannot afford to destroy. He will destroy democracy at the gress roots of the education system. His proposals will not get the best out of teachers. He proposes to pay them according to their expertise and ability. I do not know how he will find that expertise and ability. It smacks of looking for blue-eyed boys and favourites. That will lower teachers' morale even more.
  We want the Secretary of State to consider our suggestions seriously. We are not saying that the present system is right and should not be altered, but the right hon. Gentleman's proposals will make it even worse. We are trying to put in his mind ideas from which he could build a more regulated system. Our proposals will satisfy the

  551
  teachers and the trade unions, because they have already had a hand in them, and they should satisfy the Government because they will be part of that new system. There is no reason why our proposals should not work.
  The Secretary of State said that he was in an impossible position and had to do something about it. He put across that idea very well. The problem with industrial relations is that one is always in an impossible position. The art of getting out of it is to do one's best and not to take the easiest and cheapest means. Indeed, sometimes one has to buy one's way out of it. It is ironic that we have a Government who created the Union of Democratic Mineworkers. They are going against their convictions in opposing the national joint council. I ask the Secretary of State to look seriously and favourably on our amendments and to give credence to the idea that they are better than his proposals and will work better than his will. He should therefore accept our amendments.
  Mr. Corbyn: A great deal has been said on this subject, and I do not want to detain the Committee too long. The Secretary of State believes that he can somehow resolve a long-running and fundamental dispute simply by rejecting our proposal to establish a national joint council that could determine wages and conditions through a spirit of collective bargaining. He favours a body appointed by him, comprising his favourities who will do what he wants when he wants. How does that solve the problem? There will be no one with any respect for that body because people will know that, in reality, it is the Secretary of State. What will be its decisions? Will anyone agree with them? When the right hon. Gentleman's bidding has not been successful, what will happen? We shall go straight back to where we have been for the past year—into another teachers' dispute and another problem in the schools—because the right hon. Gentleman will not face up to the fact that the reasons for the dispute are that teachers have been consistently underpaid and that the Government have cut education spending.
  Anyone who looks at the history of industrial relations will realise that there has been a constant struggle for the right of trade unions to undertake proper collective bargaining in a free spirit. The Government are keen on free collective bargaining for trade union rights, provided that it is in Poland. They are not awfully keen on the same for this country. In the past seven years, they have systematically attacked the rights of trade unions to organise and have systematically destroyed whatever national minimum standards applied through the wages council system. In this legislation, the Government are trying to set up something that is much worse than the rather inadequate bodies about which many of us have complained.
  The body will be created from the Secretary of State's prejudices, and one dreads to think of the sort of people who will serve on it. Where will they come from? Will they be aspiring Tory Members of Parliament or former Tory Members of Parliament? Will they be people from the public schools, who will try to worsen the conditions of the maintained sector? Where will these creeps come from? Are there enough creeps in the country to fill the Secretary of State's advisory committee? Or will it be the ultimate trip-up by the Secretary of State, who is noted for his smooth appearance and approach? Will he finally trip over his own Brylcreem? I believe that he will be in a real mess over this.
  552
  The Secretary of State knows perfectly well that it cannot work. He knows perfectly well that he cannot solve the teachers' dispute other than by starving them to end the dispute or by ordering them back to work. This is a very dangerous step, because he is setting up an advisory body, which is dictated to by the Minister, and which comes to the decisions that the Minister wants. Will he then seek legal backing to impose its decisions on disputes? The advisory body will be no more independent than was the Spanish parliament under General Franco, or any other dictator around the world. That is the way we are moving in clause 1 of this nasty Bill.
  If the Secretary of State bothered to talk to teachers and parents, he would discover that, although many parents are angry at the number of times their children have been sent home and very angry about the loss of education for their children, and there is a great deal of chaos in the schools, the parents are not queueing up to attack the teachers. He will discover that some teachers, parents and children are getting together to attack him, because they know that the root cause of the problem is him and his Government, not the teachers. If he was a teacher, he would either have left the profession a long time ago and sought more lucrative employment, such as being a Tory Member of Parliament—
  Mr. Kenneth Baker: Lucrative?
  Mr. Corbyn: It is extremely lucrative when one has several jobs. But what can the people who love teaching and who want good education and standards do? Are they supposed to continue existing on starvation wages, or will they leave the profession? Those who wish to continue have stayed, suffered and fought for education and for the campaigns mounted by their unions.
  At the end of this debate, the Secretary of State will be very tired. He will probably be extremely bored, listening to Labour Members saying almost the same things to him, but it will not solve any problem. By Monday or Tuesday, or January or February, or whenever he succeeds in forcing through this nasty Bill, the same problem will land straight back on his doorstep and he will have to do something about it. He has solved nothing tonight and he will solve nothing tomorrow unless he faces the real issue, which is the conditions under which teachers operate, rather than attacking them for attempting to organise and obtain proper free collective bargaining.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: To conclude the debate, I ask the Secretary of State especially whether he has given any attention to amendment No. 119. That deals with a problem in his new procedure which he may have overlooked. Under the existing Burnham arrangements, if there is a local dispute about the interpretation of the agreement, the matter could be referred to the joint secretaries for interpretation. I gather that, at present, there is a dispute about people who have obtained degrees in the United States. Until 1982, anyone who had a good degree from the United States received the extra payments on the scale rates. In 1983, the Government decided that they would no longer automatically recognise for good scale rates degrees from the United States. Some believed that the intention was that individual degrees from the United States would be considered; others thought that no degrees from the United States should qualify for extra

  553
  payments. As I understand it, the Burnham committee is at the moment being asked to interpret that particular problem. I can give many more examples.
  Who will now be responsible for interpreting either the Burnham proposals which are carried forward by the legislation or the proposals which would come from an advisory committee?
  Mr. Kenneth Baker: The hon. Gentleman mentioned amendment No. 119. That should not be necessary. An order placed before the House under clause 3 can cover both remuneration and conditions of employment. Once the order has been approved by both Houses of Parliament it will carry the force of law. It will then be for local authorities to implement the provisions in the order. It will be a matter for each local education authority to decide what local consultative arrangement it has for the implementation of the contents of the order.
  7.30 am
  Mr. Bennett: I hope that the Minister will give more thought to that. I, for my sins, sometimes have to sit on the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments which looks at the orders which come up. They are extremely complex and sometimes one considers that a particular clause had to be written in, and sometimes several clauses, for that one example which may come up perhaps once every five years. There is danger about that approach of having to write everything into regulation in case one example arises. The attraction of the Burnham system, as I understand it, is that although it has laid down pretty detailed guidelines the exceptional cases can be referred to a body for interpretation. That has some attractions.
  No doubt we can return to that matter later. However, I suggest to the Minister that he may be encumbering himself and the local authorities with some exceptionally detailed regulations. There is some evidence, particularly in areas such as social security, where amending regulations have to come out extremely rapidly. I suggest that the Minister gives the matter a little more thought.
  If the Minister's objection on the general question of national joint councils is that one which is not really a national joint council has been acting like one, the present complicated procedure and the ACAS discussions do not augur well for one in education.
  However, I suggest that the main problem in education is that at ground level the Secretary of State has used his influence to try to set one teacher union against another. It has been particularly noticeable that since the discussions arrived at at Coventry are not included, he seems to have put all those efforts into trying to set one union off against another. I suggest that instead of doing that he would be better occupied trying to demonstrate that a national joint council could work.
  If the hon. Gentleman were to look at the possibilities of voting procedures within a national joint council, not just a simple majority but perhaps a two-thirds majority to obtain agreement, I am sure that he could design a procedure that would encourage the teaching unions to work together, along with the local authorities, recognising the legitimate special interests that some of the union groups represent.
  The more that the Secretary of State encourages divisions in negotiations the more he encourages divisions
  554
  and bitterness in the schools. If we want to allow our schools to return to giving a first-class service to our children, we want to get all teachers to work together in schools, and for there not to be the bitterness that does exist in some schools where people feel that perhaps over school meal regulations or some other regulation, one group of the profession has been causing particular problems for another area.
  I am sure that a national joint council would be the way forward and I regret that the Minister has set his face against the legislation and is insisting on introducing a temporary measure when either a national joint council or something along those lines will have to be introduced if we are to have a return to genuine collective bargaining. If the Government will not do that, I hope that we shall be able to repeal this legislation and ensure that we can return to joint collective bargaining in the near future.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 26, Noes 137.

  Division No. 29]

  [7.35 am

  AYES

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

  Michie, William

  Clay, Robert

  Park, George

  Cohen, Harry

  Pendry, Tom

  Cook, Frank (Stockton North)

  Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Redmond, Martin

  Fatchett, Derek

  Richardson, Ms Jo

  Fisher, Mark

  Rowlands, Ted

  Flannery, Martin

  Shields, Mrs Elizabeth

  Foster, Derek

  Skinner, Dennis

  Godman, Dr Norman

  Spearing, Nigel

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Stott, Roger

  Howarth, George (Knowsley, N)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Marek, Dr John

  Mr. Don Dixon and

  Maxton, John

  Mr. Allen McKay.

  NOES

  Alexander, Richard

  Crouch, David

  Amess, David

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Arnold, Tom

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Ashby, David

  Dicks, Terry

  Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

  Dorrell, Stephen

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

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Dover, Den

  Baldry, Tony

  Dunn, Robert

  Batiste, Spencer

  Evennett, David

  Bendall, Vivian

  Eyre, Sir Reginald

  Benyon, William

  Fallon, Michael

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Favell, Anthony

  Biggs-Davison, Sir John

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  Blackburn, John

  Forman, Nigel

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Forth, Eric

  Bottomley, Peter

  Franks, Cecil

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Freeman, Roger

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Gale, Roger

  Bright, Graham

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Brinton, Tim

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Bruinvels, Peter

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

  Burt, Alistair

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Butterfill, John

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Hargreaves, Kenneth

  Cash, William

  Harris, David

  Chope, Christopher

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Churchill, W. S.

  Hickmet, Richard

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Hind, Kenneth

  Colvin, Michael

  Hirst, Michael

  Coombs, Simon

  Holt, Richard

  Cope, John

  Howard, Michael

  Cormack, Patrick

  Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

  Corrie, John

  Hubbard-Miles, Peter

  Couchman, James

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  555

  Hunter, Andrew

  Neale, Gerrard

  Jessel, Toby

  Neubert, Michael

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Newton, Tony

  Jones, Robert (Herts W)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

  Norris, Steven

  King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

  Onslow, Cranley

  Knowles, Michael

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Lang, Ian

  Patten, Christopher (Bath)

  Latham, Michael

  Pawsey, James

  Lawler, Geoffrey

  Portillo, Michael

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Lilley, Peter

  Powley, John

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Price, Sir David

  Lord, Michael

  Proctor, K. Harvey

  Luce, Rt Hon Richard

  Raffan, Keith

  Lyell, Nicholas

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  McCrindle, Robert

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  McCurley, Mrs Anna

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Maclean, David John

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Malins, Humfrey

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  Malone, Gerald

  Spencer, Derek

  Maples, John

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Marlow, Antony

  Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

  Mather, Carol

  Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Thurnham, Peter

  Merchant, Piers

  van Straubenzee, Sir W.

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Miller, Hal (B'grove)

  Mills, Iain (Meriden)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

  Mr. Tony Durant and

  Moate, Roger

  Mr. David Lightbown.

  Moynihan, Hon C.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Motion made, and Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 144, Noes 33.

  Division No. 30]

  [7.45 am

  AYES

  Alexander, Richard

  Corrie, John

  Amess, David

  Couchman, James

  Arnold, Tom

  Crouch, David

  Ashby, David

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

  Dickens, Geoffrey

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

  Dicks, Terry

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Baldry, Tony

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

  Batiste, Spencer

  Dover, Den

  Bellingham, Henry

  Dunn, Robert

  Bendall, Vivian

  Durant, Tony

  Benyon, William

  Evennett, David

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Eyre, Sir Reginald

  Biggs-Davison, Sir John

  Fallon, Michael

  Blackburn, John

  Favell, Anthony

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Forman, Nigel

  Bottomley, Peter

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Forth, Eric

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Franks, Cecil

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

  Bright, Graham

  Freeman, Roger

  Brinton, Tim

  Gale, Roger

  Bruinvels, Peter

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Burt, Alistair

  Greenway, Harry

  Butterfill, John

  Gregory, Conal

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

  Cash, William

  Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

  Chope, Christopher

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Churchill, W. S.

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Hargreaves, Kenneth

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Harris, David

  Colvin, Michael

  Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

  Coombs, Simon

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Cope, John

  Hind, Kenneth

  Cormack, Patrick

  Hirst, Michael

  556

  Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

  Mills, Iain (Meriden)

  Holt, Richard

  Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

  Howard, Michael

  Moate, Roger

  Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

  Neale, Gerrard

  Hubbard-Miles, Peter

  Newton, Tony

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Hunter, Andrew

  Norris, Steven

  Jessel, Toby

  Onslow, Cranley

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Jones, Robert (Herts W)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

  Patten, Christopher (Bath)

  King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

  Pawsey, James

  Knowles, Michael

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Lang, Ian

  Powley, John

  Latham, Michael

  Price, Sir David

  Lawler, Geoffrey

  Proctor, K. Harvey

  Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

  Raffan, Keith

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Lightbown, David

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Lord, Michael

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Luce, Rt Hon Richard

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Lyell, Nicholas

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  McCrindle, Robert

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  McCurley, Mrs Anna

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

  Spencer, Derek

  Maclean, David John

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

  Malins, Humfrey

  Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

  Malone, Gerald

  Thurnham, Peter

  Maples, John

  van Straubenzee, Sir W.

  Marlow, Antony

  Waddington, David

  Mather, Carol

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Merchant, Piers

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Mr. Michael Neubert and

  Miller, Hal (B'grove)

  Mr. Michael Portillo.

  NOES

  Barron, Kevin

  Michie, William

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

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

  Park, George

  Clay, Robert

  Parry, Robert

  Cohen, Harry

  Pendry, Tom

  Coleman, Donald

  Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton North)

  Redmond, Martin

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Richardson, Ms Jo

  Dobson, Frank

  Rogers, Allan

  Fatchett, Derek

  Rowlands, Ted

  Fisher, Mark

  Shields, Mrs Elizabeth

  Flannery, Martin

  Skinner, Dennis

  Foster, Derek

  Spearing, Nigel

  Godman, Dr Norman

  Stott, Roger

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Howarth, George (Knowsley, N)

  Mr. Don Dixon and

  Marek, Dr John

  Mr. Allen McKay.

  Maxton, John

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2

  ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON SCHOOL TEACHERS' PAY AND CONDITIONS
  Mr. Fatchett: I beg to move amendment No. 33, in page 1, line 16, after 'appoint', insert
  'after consultation with teachers' unions and associations, and the local education authorities'.
  The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments. No. 34, in page 1, line 16, after 'appoint', insert

  557
  'on the nomination (in respect in each case of a third of the membership of the Committee) of the trades unions represented before the passage of the Act on the Burnham Primary and Secondary Committee; and of the local education authorities'.
  No. 213, in schedule 1, page 5, line 5 leave out 'five' and insert 'seven'.
  No. 214, in page 5, line 5, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
  '(1) The Advisory Committee shall consist of not fewer than fifteen members, of whom seven shall be appointed on the nomination of associations representing local education authorities and seven on the nomination of registered trade unions representing school teachers.'.
  No. 215, in page 5, line 6, leave out 'nine' and insert 'twenty'.
  No. 216, in page 5, line 6, at end insert
  'and who shall include members appointed on the nomination of the relevant local education authority associations and members appointed on the nomination of the teachers' unions and associations.'.
  Mr. Fatchett: We have discussed with you, Mr. Armstrong, the possibility of taking with this group amendment No. 35, in clause 2, page 1, line 16, after 'an', insert 'independent'. We are doing that so that the Committee can bring together two points about the advisory committee. We have taken on board the fact that progress has not been as quick as we had expected, and we are trying to facilitate matters. The hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Freud) was earlier bemoaning the fact that we were making so little progress. We are now making more rapid progress, and he is not here to see it happen, although the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mrs. Shields) is here. If the Government do not yield to the strength of our arguments, we shall seek to divide the Committee on amendment No. 33. Given the way in which the Labour vote has increased so dramatically in the last two Divisions, the Government may feel that, with the troops coming back in, it might be time to yield to our persuasive argument. We would also like to have a division on amendment No. 35.
  8 am
  The amendments deal with the advisory committee. My hon. Friends have already referred to the advisory committee, because it will replace the free collective bargaining for teachers. Our amendments deal with the balance of the advisory committee, consultation, nomination and other aspects of appointment. It may be useful for the Committee if I made it clear that while we seek to amend and improve the committee, it would not be the intention of any forthcoming Labour Government to have any truck with it, and when we come to repeal the legislation, the committee will go.
  One of our major criticisms of the committee is that made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Mr. Oakes) on Second Reading—that it is toothless—and this is shown in a whole series of aspects.
  Schedule 1 deals with the basis of appointment to the committee. Appointment will be at the pleasure of the Secretary of State. The Bill sets out various reasons for removing people from the committee—for example, if a person has become bankrupt or made an arrangement with his creditors. That seems a reasonable course. A second reason is if he is incapacitated by physical or mental illness, and, thirdly, if a person is absent for two
  558
  or more consecutive meetings of the committee, except for reasons approved by the committee. That may also seem reasonable, although one or two hon. Members might find it a dangerous rule if it were applied to the House. Finally, the Secretary of State takes to himself the power to dismiss from the committee a person
  "who is, in the opinion of the Secretary of State otherwise unable or unfit to perform his duties as member."
  In other words, the Secretary of State determines whether a person is unable or unfit to serve on the committee. We know from the record of the Government only one way that the powers will be used. The Government and the Secretary of State will act as they have acted over the past few years, when the Secretary of State was in another office. They will appoint to the advisory committee only those people who are prepared to go along with the Secretary of State.
  Mr. Frank Cook: Noddies.
  Mr. Fatchett: My hon. Friend says, "Noddies." That may well be an attack on an important children's toy and book, and is probably an unreasonable comment by my hon. Friend at this time of the morning. Children enjoy Noddy books and would be unhappy to see Noddy acquainted with the people we might find on the advisory committee. I hope that my hon. Friend will take an opportunity to withdraw his comment.
  We will see what we have seen from the Government in other contexts. I ask my hon. Friends to think about all the appointments that the Government have made to chair district health authorities and the membership of those authorities. They appoint people who will support their policies and do not seek a balance or representation to reflect different views. They will simply search for people who will nod through the Government's policy. The Secretary of State, who is not here at the moment, has a record for doing that.
  Some of us had the dubious pleasure of serving with the Secretary of State during the passage of the bill to abolish the GLC and the Metropolitan councils. We said then that the people he would appoint to chair the residuary bodies would be totally dependent on the government and would follow the Government's wishes. Anybody who lives and works in a metropolitan council area or in the GLC area will know how true those comments proved to be. The Government appointed to chair and run the residuary bodies exactly the sort of people that we expect them to appoint to the advisory committee—placemen for the Secretary of State.
  In advancing interesting arguments during the earlier part of the debate, some of my hon. Friends spoke about the power of ACAS and the role of ballots in industrial disputes. I think it was my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) who asked the Minister of State to have a ballot on the Secretary of State's proposals. That brings to mind again the parallel with the metropolitan counties and GLC, because during the passage of the Bill to abolish them we tabled an amendment that the Secretary of State should have a ballot about abolition. We said that if he believed abolition would be popular he should subject it to the test of popular opinion. The Secretary of State refused to accept any such amendment. When it comes to a test of popular opinion, whether of the electors in the metropolitan areas or in the GLC area or of teachers, the Secretary of State runs away.
  Mr. Corbyn: Does my hon. Friend recall that during the struggle against the abolition proposals, four GLC by-elections were held because Labour members resigned so that the electors could have a voice? The Conservative party refused to contest those elections.
  Mr. Fatchett: I welcome that point from my hon. Friend because it shows that the Conservative party has a certain disregard for ballots. My hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) suggests that the Conservatives may even refuse to stand at the next general election. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) said that this debate had been running for less than a day and we had already gained five points in the opinion polls. If that process continues, the Conservatives might take the action that my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras suggests. If that happens, there might be a series of place men sitting on the Government Benches.
  Mr. Kevin Barron: The Conservatives may already have decided to withdraw from the election without making it public. I do not think the conservatives have a candidate to stand against me at the next general election. Perhaps they are quite happy with the present representation.
  The First Deputy Chairman: Order. We had better return to the amendment.
  Mr. Fatchett: That is an interesting psychological observation by my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron), but I refuse to comment on it.
  Mr. Allan Rogers: Does my hon. Friend find the Government's attitude to ballots strange? During the miners' strike there were Nuremberg-type chants from the Government Benches for a ballot. The cry was "Ballot, ballot, ballot" throughout the strike. Conservative Members were so concerned about democracy then. Is it not strange that now they are in conflict with the teachers they do not want a ballot? What is my hon. Friend's opinion of this selective democracy that is operated by the Conservative party and the Government?
  Mr. Fatchett: We have expressed strong opinions about that throughout the night. My hon. Friend is right in saying that the Government have less than an even-handed approach to democracy. My hon. Friend may have entered the Chamber a little late, but I have no doubt that he will come to the same conclusion as my hon. Friends and me. The Government move quickly in whichever way they find convenient, and the question of principle rarely arises in that process.
  I am delighted that the Under-Secretary of State is to reply to the debate. He has been present for about 15 hours and he has not been able to utter a word. That must be a great disappointment to him and to his many admirers on the Government and Opposition Benches. The hon. Gentleman will have the opportunity to address the Committee, and I suspect that my colleagues will want to make comments on the advisory committee. I have no doubt that the Minister will have the opportunity to reply to the debate.
  The Minister will note that the amendments are an attempt to meet the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) has made. We are trying to introduce an element of indirect democracy. Some of the amendments allow direct nomination by the individual
  560
  trade union bodies, or in some instances the local authorities. This is not the same as a ballot of all teachers. We are trying to find common ground with the Government. We know that they are frightened of total ballots, but we thought that a system of indirect democracy meant that they would be prepared to accept the sort of amendments that we are tabling. The amendments would reflect the balance that exists within the current machinery and among the teachers' unions in membership, and it would involve an element of democracy and accountability.
  If our amendments were accepted, the committee would have a degree of accountability. Those who served on the committee would report back to individual local authority associations or to individual trade union associations. We do not accept the principle of the Bill. Surely the hon. Gentleman must welcome the constructive way in which we are trying to improve the status and standing of the advisory committee. The amendments would work to that extent.
  I shall comment briefly on amendment No. 35 and the group of amendments which are to be taken with it for debate. The amendments aim to extend both the powers and the independence of the advisory committee. It has been said time and again throughout the debate that the advisory committee is basically a tool or device of the Secretary of State. It has no independence and no real ability to gain legitimacy in the eyes of teachers or in the eyes of local authorities and their associations. We are saying that the committee should become independent of the Secretary of State and have the right to report to Parliament directly. On a number of occasions during the course of the debate the Secretary of State has suggested that he welcomes the greater involvement of Parliament. Our search for that middle ground has led to us wishing to give Parliament a greater role in the proceedings.
  We are saying that if the amendments are accepted, there will be a process of direct reporting to Parliament from an independent body. In those circumstances we may be able to find other analogies in collective bargaining and industrial relations that will be similar to the machinery that we are suggesting. There will be no other example of workers who have moved from free collective bargaining to the independent advisory committee that is implied by the amendments. We put them forward very much as second best to collective bargaining. If the Minister is prepared to support these amendments, we shall at least get an advisory committee which, although independent of the Secretary of State, will have some powers and the ability to report to Parliament.
  8.15 am
  These amendments seek to remove from the advisory committee the total control and domination of the Secretary of State. If they are accepted, we shall have a better representation of membership and greater independence and powers. The Minister should recognise that if this committee is to do its job it needs these powers and this independence. That is why I ask the Committee to support the amendments.
  Mr. George Howarth: My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) has made some telling points, several of which probably need emphasising.
  The Bill refers to the advisory committee which will report on the remuneration and conditions of service of those in the teaching profession. On the surface that seems

  561
  to be sensible—even acceptable—but while accepting the need to seek advice, we must ask what the committee will do in practice.
  Clause 2(2) enables the Secretary of State to give directions to the committee in respect of financial and other constraints. How will he do so, how large will the financial and other constraints be, and what discretion, if any, will the committee have? If it has no independence, it will be a sorry business if, on the one hand, we set up an advisory body—with all the notions of consultation that that invokes—while on the other its powers and potential usefulness are so circumscribed as to render it powerless. That appears to be the direction in which it could go.
  The word "direct" has sinister connotations; and given the recent history of industrial relations in education, one becomes worried. On looking further into the matter—as I have done—those worries become stronger.
  Schedule 1 sets out in skeletal form the constitution and procedures of the proposed new body. First, the Secretary of State has, and will no doubt use, the power to appoint the committee. How will it be composed? That is a good question, but so far we have had very little illumination.
  I suspect that it will be composed not of people committed to the education service or its salary structure and so on, but of people who will do the bidding of the Secretary of State. I predict that we shall not even get people with expertise and experience in industrial relations, local government or other equally appropriate disciplines. They will probably be people who owe some kind of debt of gratitude to the Secretary of State—yes men who will do the right hon. Gentleman's bidding. People might be appointed because they are politically acceptable. That is a bit worrying because someone who is politically acceptable to this Government is often unacceptable to the education movement and outside.
  The Government might produce a list of people who are acceptable, but I fear that they will not. The danger in putting the appointments in the gift of the Secretary of State, past, present or future—in the short term at least—is that the power may be used to make political appointments.
  If politically acceptable people are appointed and they do not do their job quite as the Government want, the Secretary of State has the right to remove anyone who in his opinion is
  "unfit to perform his duties".
  What does "unfit" mean and who will decide who is "unfit"? Potentially, those words could encompass anyone who is simply unprepared to toe the Government line. What would happen if a politically acceptable appointee felt a rush of blood to the head and decided to be honourable? He would be removed as unfit. Is such a reserve power consistent with the apparent aim of conducting these matters in a balanced and sober way?
  The proposal will widen the Government's ability to further abuse the education system. The Bill does not ensure the proper resolution of the central problems about which we are concerned. It does nothing to bring order and it inflames rather than settles issues at this time.
  Mr. Dunn: It might help if I say a few words now and then listen to other contributions. The hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett), as usual, was kind and
  562
  courteous in his comments about me. I have waited a long time for this opportunity to speak. I shall savour the opportunity since I have no idea what lies ahead.
  Today was the first time that I have heard the hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) and I was worried about what he said about the appointments by the Secretary of State to the advisory committee. Because of his knowledge, the hon. Gentleman will know that successive Secretaries of State in Governments of both parties have made appointments to outside bodies. The University Grants Committee is, perhaps, the best example, but more recently appointments to the Committee for the Accreditation of Teacher Education were made by the then Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph). Neither those appointments nor others by previous Secretaries of State, were seen to be politically motivated. The appointees had strong views connected with industry, the trade unions or the theatre—which is not unknown to us. I should like examples of the type of abuse described by Opposition Members.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: What about district health authorities?
  Mr. Fatchett: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Dunn: In a moment. I want to answer the point made by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett). Because I am not qualified to judge outside the area for which I am responsible, I deliberately spoke about appointments to bodies in education. There may be some comments that could be made from time to time in a snide way about people who serve on local or area health authorities. In education there are no examples that I am aware of—there may be some known to other hon. Members—where there has been a political appointment to bring about the results predicted by the hon. Member for Knowsley, North.
  Mr. Fatchett: Given the fact that the advisory committee will be so political and that its work will create much controversy, is it not reasonable to expect that people will look to bodies outside education for experience of appointments to Government bodies? In that context, the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) is appropriate. We noted the Minister's reservation about some of those appointments. If the Minister has reservations, he will understand that many people recognise the political nature of those appointments and will ask, "If it happens in health, why shouldn't it happen over teachers' pay?".
  Mr. Dunn: Because my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will choose honourable men and women to serve on the advisory committee.
  As we are talking about appointments to bodies that have to take difficult decisions, I should say that the UGC has made controversial decisions in recent years and CATE also has a difficult task in evaluating teacher training and education.
  The Bill provides that responsibility for appointing members to the advisory committee shall rest with the Secretary of State. That is a matter of consent. The difficulty about accepting the amendments is that they are mischievous and perverse, because they would recreate something that we are trying to get rid of—a mark II Burnham committee.

  563
  Amendment No. 34 talks about membership being one third one third one third to particular interests. Amendments Nos. 213 and 215 seek to increase the minimum and maximum size of the committee. If we had a committee of 12 people it would be divided 4:4:4, but how would the Labour party decide which of the six unions and the other teacher interests, such as the Inner London Teachers Association, should take up the four seats? Would there be weighting according to membership, regional spread, responsibility spread and so on? The Opposition have not thought it out. With 4:4:4, so that not all six unions can be represented, we shall be back to the major Burnham committee problems when the NUT dominated the committee through sheer weight of numbers. There would be a tussle for seats.
  People who were appointed to the committee to represent particular unions or teacher associations would constantly have to go back to their masters to decide what their policy was to be. The independence that the Opposition would like for the committee would not exist from the first minute of the first day.
  Accountability is an important aspect of the debate. To whom would the ILTA be responsible if it were appointed to the committee.
  Mr. Fatchett: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Dunn: I promise that I shall give way in a moment. The matter of accountability is such that there may be nominations from employers, who might be Labour-dominated, and who then go back to their source, and there may be teacher unions, who would then go back to their source. The independence of the advisory committee, which genuinely is sought in the amendments, would not be brought about.
  8.30 am
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that, quite frequently in arbitration cases, a neutral chairman is appointed and the employers nominate one person and the employees nominate another person? It would be easy for those three people to put forward someone who is independent and who they consider to be a fair-minded person. The Minister claimed that the Secretary of State was capable of doing that, so why can these groups not do it?
  Mr. Dunn: This is not an arbitration concept. It is an advisory committee. The hon. Gentleman has been in politics for a fair while, as I have. He knows that a great deal is often done in an informal sense—in smoke-filled rooms, in bars or behind the Speaker's Chair—to achieve the same results. The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish is a man of the world. [Interruption.] I believe him to be a man of the world. I am sure that he must be. I should imagine that he knows precisely the nature and importance of informal exchanges as well as of formal exchanges. Constant toing and froing, from the advisory committee to the source of the nomination, will make the committee much more inflexible, much more dangerous and much less independent than the hon. Gentleman would like.
  That is not the kind of advisory body that Conservative Members want. It is not, in our view, to be representative of particular vested interests. For the benefit of those who must already know, I repeat that we do not want any return to squabbling points of view and narrow sectarian
  564
  approaches. The committee must be composed of people who can look objectively at the problems of the teaching profession, without fear of recall, censure or penalty. That means attracting and appointing independent people of standing to the advisory committee.
  Mr. Fatchett rose—
  Mr. Kenneth Baker: Do not give way.
  Mr. Fatchett: The Minister is talking about independence, and he is taking orders. Does the Minister not accept that, under these procedures the Secretary of State has a right immediately to dismiss? He said that there shall be no recall, as there would be under a system of local government or local authority accountability, but there is a system of recall. It is in the Secretary of State's office, and it is called dismissal.
  Mr. Dunn: The dismissal by any Secretary of State would be subject to judicial review. Would recall to the National Union of Teachers headquarters be subject to the same review? I doubt it.
  Mr. Batiste: My hon. Friend should be aware that the city of Leeds, which is temporarily under Labour control, has an abysmal record of recalling councillors who speak in opposition to the party line. The measures that my hon. Friend announced will be important. That fact should be well known to the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds).
  Mr. Dunn: Labour control of any place is a temporary phenomenon. The point that my hon. Friend made is well known, and I am sure that he will expose it in the city of Leeds with which he has connections.
  Opposition Members will have to wait to see who is on the committee. We have not even begun to put together a list of names. It must be understood that the Secretary of State will look for people of standing, integrity and independence of mind. The committee will not be the Secretary of State's poodle. It will not even be a Welsh corgi. It will exercise independent judgment, conduct independent analysis and arrive at independent conclusions.
  It is suggested that my right hon. Friend should not refer matters to the committee or give it directions, but that it should decide of its own motion what matters to examine, or should have matters referred to it by local education authorities and teachers unions, or should consider matters only after their referral has been the subject of consultation.
  The committee will, in any event, have quite a task to undertake. It will need some indication of what matters to examine and what priority to give them. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the holder of his office will be able to pick out issues of importance for the committee's attention. When he does so, I should be very surprised if others did not think that they were important. He will not make an unreasonable selection of issues. If all and sundry could refer matters to the committee, the committee would be swamped and would not be able to function. Of course, the Opposition would like that. It is right, of course, that references should come from one direction and that the committee should then take evidence on them from all interested parties.
  Not so much in this debate but in earlier ones, there was an insistence that the results of the committee's work should be published. That insistence is unnecessary. I can

  565
  give, on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, an unqualified assurance that the committee's reports will be published. My right hon. Friend will place them in the Library and there will be no undue delays in publication.
  I return to the point made by the hon. Member for Leeds, Central on dismissal. The Opposition have tried, and failed, to make something of the provision in the schedule that the Secretary of State may remove a member from office if that member is, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, otherwise unable or unfit to discharge the functions of a member. They imply that there is something political or sinister in that. As the Committee knows, that is entirely common form. It appears in the Employment and Training Act 1973 in relation to the Manpower Services Commission and in the Health and Safety at Work Act etc. 1974 in relation to the Health and Safety Commission. Of course, the Committee will know that the Secretary of State would need to have evidence on which he could properly base an opinion that the member was unable or unfit to perform his duties. If he made an unreasonable decision, it could be challenged by way of judicial review.
  Mr. Rogers: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Kenneth Baker: Do not give way. The hon. Gentleman has not been here all night.
  Mr. Dunn: I am an independent Member and I have given way a number of times.
  Mr. Fatchett: The Secretary of State told the hon. Gentleman not to give way.
  Mr. Dunn: I am conscious of that. But I want to help the Committee to make progress. As light breaks over Westminster, we must make progress.
  I think that I have demonstrated that, although I understand the thrust of the amendments, it is my intention to suggest to the Committee that they be rejected.
  Mr. Rogers: On a point of order, Mr. Armstrong. In view of the rather silly remark by the Secretary of State when I tried to intervene, is it now to be a condition of participating in the debate that an hon. Member should have been here all night? I do not think that the Secretary of State has been here all night.
  The First Deputy Chairman: The hon. Member knows that that is not a point of order for me.
  Dr. Marek: I shall certainly give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) if he chooses to intervene.
  We have had a scandalous explanation of why we shall have an advisory body that will be dominated by the Secretary of State, will be accountable only to the Secretary of State, will be composed of placemen of the Secretary of State and will publish reports but not the reasons behind them. The Under-Secretary of State referred to other bodies, but he distanced himself somewhat from appointments in the Health Service. I shall be interested to read in the Official Report exactly what he said. He placed much emphasis on being able to appoint people from the Department of Education and Science who have integrity and who are capable of examining the
  566
  issues objectively and reporting on them. But can he do that? Even if he can do it, he must convince the House, the public and the teachers that he has done it. Unless it is done openly, his case will not be very convincing.
  I refer the Minister to the parallels with the University Grants Committee. Recently, the UGC carried out an exercise and published a report, but we do not know how it rated the various university departments and cost centres. There are rumours that it conducted the research by examining research papers produced during the past five years. This is relevant to the advisory body which the Minister proposes to set up. No one knows how the UGC carried out its work, because its operations are not published.
  Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: If the hon. Gentleman were to speak a little louder, he would wake up his colleagues who are asleep on the Labour Benches. He is casting a slur on the work of the University Grants Committee, which consulted widely before making its determinations.
  Dr. Marek: The hon. Lady is wrong. I may cast such a slur in what I am about to say, but so far all that I have said is that although the UGC produced a report—it consulted, but only with selected people—it did not explain how it went about its work and why it made the decision that it did. I hope that the hon. Lady will accept that. No one in the university system who is not a member of the UGC or one of the sub-committees knows exactly what went on in the UGC. Several academics in universities have been drawing comparisons between what should be cut a litle more and what should be cut a little less and the institutions from which the members of the UGC come. I do not suggest that there is more than a casual connection. However, it is for the UGC to prove that there is no causal connection between the institution from which a UGC member comes and the results for that institution. The matter is debated in unversity circles.
  I suspect that the same thing will happen with this advisory body. Of course, it could be appointed from people who have integrity and can consider matters objectively, and no doubt its reports will be pulbished, but unless the reasoning and the papers behind the report are published, the public will be unable to judge the objectivity of any such reports. The Secretary of State has no intention of publishing all the papers. The Under-Secretary of State is shaking is head. Suspicion will, therefore, remain, and I am sorry to have heard such shallow reasoning by the Minister, who jumped up early before some of my hon. Friends could make their important contributions to the debate. I hope that the Minister will speak again in the debate.
  ILO convention 151, article 8, states:
  "The settlement of disputes arising in connection with the determination of terms and conditions of employment shall be sought, as may be appropriate to national conditions, through negotiation between the parties or through independent and impartial machinery, such as mediation, conciliation and arbitration, established in such a manner as to ensure the confidence of the parties involved."
  I quoted that convention earlier.
  We have not heard a satisfactory reply from the Secretary of State. He dismissed it, although Britain is a signatory to the article. I wish to dwell on some of the words used in the article—"confidence" and "independent and impartial". Why should we accept from the Minister that the advisory committee will be independent and impartial? He says that it will be from his point of

  567
  view. However, it will be made of people whom he has appointed and to whom he will refer matters and then receive their report. Why should we see them as independent and impartial?
  Secondly, the paragraph at the end of article 8 says:
  "to ensure the confidence of the parties involved."
  It does not say "party"—the Minister—but "parties"—the other side of the argument, the LEAs and the professional teacher organisations representing the teachers.
  8.45 am
  I should like an explanation from the Minister of how the form of advisory committee that he is setting up fits in with article 8 and why he thinks that this advisory committee will establish or ensure the confidence of the parties involved. I cannot see that. It will ensure the confidence of one of the parties, the Minister—there is no doubt about that—but I do not think that the Minister will argue with me that the teacher organisations will have no confidence in the advisory committee.
  Other hon. Members want to speak and I shall not delay the Committee further. I have made two serious points. We want to see more confidence and impartiality. I understand the arguments on the advisory committee. The hon. Gentleman does not want it to be another Burnham committee. I do not necessarily agree with him, but I take his point and I understand his arguments. However, that does not mean that he cannot move some way towards meeting the requirements of article 8 of convention 151, which the United Kingdom as ratified. He could also take some lessons from what has happened within the UGC and the way in which that information has been disseminated, because I am sure that there are lessons there. He should try to avoid the same sort of thing happening with the advisory committee.
  Mrs. Elizabeth Shields: The most worrying implication of the Bill, not just for the education sector, which is naturally of the utmost importance to the country's future, but for other areas where a similar power may be built in, is the totalitarian control afforded to the Secretary of State.
  There was much talk by the Minister earlier in the week of "consultation", but that consultation may count for nothing if the Secretary of State can overrule every suggestion, proposal or amendment, even after discussion and recommendation by the proposed advisory committee.
  The Secretary of State is effectively saying to the teachers, the unions and the LEAs, "Heads I win, tails you lose." The whole principle of collective bargaining is being abandoned. Not only are the local authorities, which, as employers pay the greater part of teachers' salaries, being deprived of their negotiating rights, but so are the teachers' representatives.
  The unprecedented attack on negotiating rights may be the most iniquitous part of the Bill. Those rights have been in existence since 1919 and, if superseded by the proposals, could mean the disfranchisement of about 400,000 teachers.
  The standing joint committee was founded in order to bring stability into industrial relations in education through a national partnership composed of LEAs, teachers and the state. I recognise that, 60-odd years later, the reform of Burnham is needed, but the proposals before us are for complete centralisation.
  568
  Amendment No. 34 says that the major bodies concerned should be represented—both the unions most closely involved with the members of the profession and the teaching scene in the classroom, and of the LEAs, which have local responsibility for and knowledge of the schools in their areas.
  If one compares the procedures relating to pay and conditions in the nursing profession, for example, there is obviously a difference of approach. The nurses, rightly, have an independent review body to discuss their pay which is separate from negotiations carried out by the health authorities and the nursing unions with regard to their conditions of work. According to these proposals, teachers will have a non-independent review body which will be able to discuss only what the Secretary of State says it may discuss.
  Many hon. Members have been connected in the past with the education service. My connections are more recent than theirs. I am well aware of the frustrations of former colleagues and of the low level to which morale in the profession has sunk. Abolishing national representation, thereby preventing teachers from communicating through well-established union channels, will not make for good industrial relations—rather the reverse. I do not believe, however, that teachers will allow themselves to be steamrollered in this fashion.
  The Secretary of State is heading for disaster if he takes hold of the educational reins in the way that is outlined in the Bill and makes himself virtually a dictator in education. Given the rapidity with which the Bill is being pushed through Parliament, he may achieve his objective. The numerical superiority of those who sit on the Government Benches may, unfortunately, ensure this, but amendments may receive a different reception in another place.
  The Secretary of State should also reflect upon the fact that a dictatorship can lead to unwelcome and sometimes unpleasant reactions. The practical consequences of his actions will echo adversely ' through the educational establishments of this land. I join other Opposition Members in condemning such a move in the educational sector as unprecedented, unwise and completely undemocratic.
  Mr. Peter Hardy: I had intended to address my remarks to the Secretary of State for Education and Science, but he has disappeared. He may come back, and if he does I hope that his junior Ministers will remind him of the remarks that I shall address particularly to him.
  My intervention is relevant to the amendment. It is also relevant to the point made by the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mrs. Shields). She referred to the lack of morale in the teaching profession. I was a schoolmaster for a very long time. I was president of my association when we went on strike for one day to secure recognition for Burnham purposes. In those days the Conservative Government were swifter in detecting the feelings of those in the teaching profession than they are today. It is a pity that the Government do not recognise that their first priority should be to restore morale rather than to introduce the arrangements that are embodied in the Bill.
  In January next the Secretary of State is to address the north of England education conference at Wentworth Woodhouse in my constituency. I wish to convey the apology that I have sent to those who invited me to attend

  569
  to the Secretary of State also. I have to attend a meeting elsewhere on the same day. It is important to refer to Wentworth, because something happened there about 100 years ago that is relevant to the Bill. It is right to tell the Committee about what happened then. In Wentworth there is a very good village school. It existed 120 years ago, and a maiden lady was the schoolmistress at that time. This was in the days when a reactionary 19th century Government applied the rule of payment by result.
  When Her Majesty's inspector of schools arrived in Wentworth he decided that this lady was a very poor schoolmistress. His assessment of her teaching was "very wretched". The great house, Wentworth Woodhouse, which the Secretary of State is to visit shortly, is owned by the Earls Fitzwilliam. The Earl Fitzwilliam of the time took very seriously the patronage of his estate village. He was deeply concerned that Her Majesty's inspector of school's assessment of the lady was very poor. He came to the House of Lords, where he encountered the president of the board of education. He complained to him that Her Majesty's inspector of schools having had the audacity to give this lady a very bad assessment. Because of the way things were done in those days, shortly after Earl Fitzwilliam contacted the president of the board of education, Her Majesty's inspector of schools was asked to carry out a further inspection of this lady's achievements.
  When the inspector arrived at Wentworth village school to review the case, he saw not merely the children of Wentworth, but the Earl Fitzwilliam, Countess Fitzwilliam, Lord Milton, their eldest son, who was usually a Member of Parliament—a Whig—and three or four assorted nobility. That was only a short time after the first assessment, but the strange thing was that the assessment that the inspector of schools made on the second visit showed a remarkable and astonishing improvement in the prowess and professional achievement of the teacher.
  That story, which is relevant to the amendment—
  Mr. Dunn indicated assent.
  Mr. Hardy: I am glad that the Minister is nodding his head in approval of that proposition.
  That story illustrates several things. First, it illustrates that the Conservatives 120 years ago were much more responsive to the realities for people in the north of England in areas such as mine than they are now. Secondly, it illustrates that the Conservative party has changed dramatically from the principle of noblesse oblige, which led an important nobleman to become concerned about a humble schoolmistress. Thirdly, it illustrates that those who were in Parliament and knew their areas could affect decision making in a way that this Government do not like. It may illustrate that there was something wrong with the methods of assessing teachers in those days. It may even illustrate that something was wrong about preferment in the Church. I understand that shortly afterwards that inspector of schools was made a bishop. It may illustrate that the methods of assessment, the principles involved and the mechanics that applied in those days are essentially the principles and mechanics that will relate to the development of the supervision of
  570
  teachers' pay and conditions by the various bodies that will be associated with that process under the Government's proposals.
  History turns circles. We are circling away from a system which, by its historic chemistry, had begun to develop fairly in the post-war period until this Government began to set the profession on its head. The Government should understand that the unsatisfactory aspects of 19th century educational management will be developed in the late 20th century. Before it is too late, I suggest to the Minister that the matter should be reappraised. The amendment should command attention.
  Mr. Rogers: One of the problems that we face on Labour Benches is the fact that yet again we have come up against a Secretary of State and Ministers who refuse to accept reasoned argument on amendments that are designed to help. The Under-Secretary said that the amendments were mischievous and perverse and that they were Burnham mark II. Often, one of the reasons for developing a mark II of any product is that an improvement is required. That is why we have tabled the amendments.
  The amendments are mischievous and perverse in one sense, in that when we tabled them we anticipated the Government's response. It is the response that they have given to every sensible suggestion that has been made. As Labour Members know, they are dug into blind dogmatic hatred, in many ways, of anybody who earns a wage or salary. Anybody who is on fees or commissions or who charges whatever he likes for whatever he performs is the good guy in the Conservative party book, but anyone who does an eight-hour day and is paid a wage or salary is the one to be screwed in the Conservative economy. So we expected that response to these reasonable amendments. We in the Opposition do not see what is wrong in any way with employees being involved in or consulted about their pay conditions of work and so on. We consider that to be normal, rational and proper.
  At the end of all this, the teachers will end up being treated differently from every other profession in the country. The status of the teacher will be downgraded as a result of being subjected to the conditions of the Bill. No longer will the post of a teacher in the community be looked upon as an honourable profession, to be ranked alongside doctors, lawyers, accountants and architects. They will be seen as someone who is simply employed at the rates of pay and the conditions of work laid down by the Secretary of State.
  9 am
  The Secretary of State is absent, as I suppose he has been on many occasions during the night, because he looked very sleek this morning, but perhaps I can ask the junior Ministers some questions that I hope will be answered in the reply to this debate. My first, question, which I ask as a Welshman is, how many Welsh people will be on the body as of right? It is part of the arrogance of the Department of Education and Science on this matter that it has not even considered that issue and the Under-Secretary of State did not mention Wales in anything that he said. Of course, this measure applies not only to England but to Wales. What representation will Wales have on the body? Is the Minister going to allow the peculiar problems that relate to Wales and Welsh education to be taken cognisance of in the advice that is received? I know that it is daft for me to ask for

  571
  representation from Wales because we know that when the advice and reports are provided the Minister will ignore them anyway. However, we should put a clear marker down at this stage and I hope that the Minister replies he will say what input the Principality will have on the advisory committee.
  When the Minister replies I hope that he will also be able to answer a point that was partly raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek). Will the papers and documents of the advisory committee be available for perusal by Parliament or is it to be another secret body to be kept under wraps with the only thing coming out at the end of the day being the Minister's decision? I hope that the Minister will be able to satisfy us on that. Will the report of the advisory body on any issue that has been referred to it by the Secretary of State be published?
  Mr. Kenneth Baker: Yes.
  Mr. Rogers: I am glad that the Secretary of State has said that, because it has relieved us of one of our great fears.
  Mention has been made—I shall not labour this because contributions should be brief at this stage—of the fact that the Secretary of State will be quite unilateral in his powers of appointment.
  I greatly fear the way in which appointments have taken place in area health authorities in Wales since the Government took office. With the appointment of the Secretary of State for Wales we saw a clearing out of everybody who sat on those bodies who did not conform to the Secretary of State's potential views. We had ridiculous circumstances where people of great integrity, seniority and with great knowledge of the Health Service were dismissed and people were brought in who had no real knowledge of the Health Service and no real contact with it but happened to be friends or, in one instance, the solicitor, of the Secretary of State for Wales. I am not saying that that man was not a person of integrity, honour, fairness and intelligence but he did not have any background in that area and it was obviously a personal appointment of the Secretary of State for Wales. I hope that the Secretary of State for Education and Science will not go down that road in making his appointments.
  One problem with this—I am sure that the Secretary of State will accept our fears on this issue—is that if he is to have such wide and arbitrary powers he must accept that we will be suspicious of them. The present Secretary of State may appoint a fair and honest committee of people with integrity and he may heed its advice, but that does not mean that all future Secretaries of State will do so. The profession and everyone else must be concerned at such a small body being given such arbitrary powers and reporting only to the Secretary of State.
  Mr. Barron: The debate is going so well that I hesitate to intervene, but I wish to point out the great weakness of clause 2. I refer to the absence of any indication, either in the clause or in the Minister's speech, as to whether the local authorities and the teachers' unions and associations will in any way be represented on the advisory committee. I hope that the Minister will tell us, preferably before we divide the Committee on this, whether there is any intention to consult the various bodies and, if so, how it will be done.
  572
  Amendment No. 33 is one of the most helpful amendments that I have ever seen. It does not lay down powers sought by the Secretary of State but asks him to consult the education authorities and the teachers' unions and associations before the appointments to the committee are made public. I cannot see anything wrong with that. The Secretary of State should also regard it as his duty to consult the major parties in relation to any agreement or advice suggested by the advisory committee.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) mentioned convention No. 151 of the International Labour Organisation. Article 8 refers to
  "independent and impartial machinery, such as mediation, conciliation and arbitration, established in such a manner as to ensure the confidence of the parties involved."
  How can any of the parties have any confidence in the advisory committee when the Secretary of State and the Minister will not say whether they are prepared even to consult, let alone take note or do as they are bid by the interests involved. Amendment No. 33 is perfectly reasonable. It would go some way, at least, towards ensuring that there is some confidence in the decisions coming from the advisory committee. The Minister described it as mischievous and perverse. That is a disgraceful reaction to a helpful amendment. I am sure that it would be supported by all the organisations that seem to be excluded from consultation by the Secretary of State.
  I see that the Secretary of State and the Minister of State have their heads together. I hope that they will reconsider amendment No. 33 and accept that consultation has always been embedded in the machinery of public bodies and trade unions. We want the Government to help the negotiations rather than try to get rid of free collective bargaining negotiations, and thus fail to ensure that people get their rights and have confidence in what is being done by Whitehall.
  Mr. Frank Dobson: I apologise for not being here to hear the dawn chorus, but I do not intend to delay the Committee long.
  The Government seem to be proceeding with this Bill, as with many others, on the basis of the old schoolmasterish principle that if it answers back shut it up, if it still answers back suspend it, and if it still answers back expel it. That is not a democratic approach. We want a society in which people are encouraged to answer back and have their say and a legitimate influence on all of the bodies that affect them.
  The Burnham committee, flawed as everybody realises that it is, provides for teachers and their employers to have a major say in what happens to their pay. The Bill is just a product of the Government's "rent-a-creep" approach to public bodies. Whenever they have the opportunity, they get rid of representative bodies and replace them with appointed ones. The appointees are scarcely worthwhile. They are not people of stature because people of stature will not come forward to be appointed as creatures of the Government.
  General Jaruzelski would be happy with schedule 1 and the terms of appointment. It is a long time since we heard the cant of Conservative Members about free trade unions in Poland, but all their cant did not lead them to do anything about helping free trade unions in Britain.
  Mr. John Evans: Is my hon. Friend aware that, since the Tories took office in 1979, they have

  573
  put three Bills through the House—the Employment Acts of 1980 and 1982 and the Trade Union Act 1984—on the grounds that they are giving trade unions back to their members, whereas here they are taking trade unions away from their members? Would my hon. Friend care to comment on that?
  Mr. Dobson: That is the nub of the argument about the Bill. The Government are saying that we can have free trade unions, it is just that they will not have a say in anything to do with pay and conditions.
  It is common knowledge that the Government, led by the Prime Minister, ask of every potential public appointment, "Is this person one of our sort?" The Ministers who make the assessments, however, have proved themselves utterly unfit for public office. They will ask whether Mr., Mrs. or Ms. X is one of their sort and will properly reflect their views if appointed to the advisory committee.
  I challenge the Secretary of State to get up now and guarantee that he will make available in the Library all of the information that he, his Department and Tory Central Office has about any of the people that they consider for appointment to the advisory committee.
  Mr. Rogers: My hon. Friend might not be aware that the Minister said that he would appoint only honourable men. He did not mention honourable ladies.
  Mr. Dunn: I did.
  Mr. Rogers: In that case I withdraw my comment.
  Mr. Dobson: My recollection tallied with that of my hon. Friend, but no doubt Hansard will show who is correct.
  9.15 am
  Mr. Caborn: We have seen this political vetting in many sectors since the Government have been in power, for example in the health authorities. A colleague of mine in Sheffield was the chair of one of the area health authorities for many years, but has now been removed because he would not comply with the privatisation diktats from Government. He has a wealth of knowledge about the industry and the services provided, but because he will not carry out Government dogma, he has been removed from his post. Could not such actions be repeated under the provisions of the Bill?
  Mr. Dobson: I agree with my hon. Friend. In the health sector, there has been a tradition of making balanced appointments on the basis that people would reflect the public interest, and have a record of public service and so on. In this case, the Government are setting out to establish a body with the sole objective of ensuring that nobody with a track record of public service would dream of serving on the body.
  It is an inherent tendency in anyone with power to appoint those who will agree with one, but some people manage to resist that. The Government have not, but they would also claim that they are getting a good quality of appointee, even among those who always agree with them. Therefore, it is worth while drawing attention to that part of schedule 1 that refers to those who have become bankrupt or made an arrangement with their creditors being dismissed from those bodies.
  574
  It is not long ago that one of the Government's appointees as chair of the south-west Surrey health authority, a Mr. Salmon, left that office because he became bankrupt. The Government had such faith in the financial and managerial skills of Mr. Salmon, that one of his previous appointments was to a group that was advising the Government on value for money in the National Health Service. He was one of the Prime Minister's sort, but he was so stupid as to go bankrupt because he bought a boatload of bananas that went rotten before he could get them to shore. Those are the sort of people that the Government are appointing, and we want to keep them out of our Health Service, and wish that they had never got into our education system.
  There is a serious point to be made to those Tory Members who call themselves, and genuinely believe themselves to be, Conservatives. Many of them are not, by any definition. Those who regard themselves as Conservative take almost as a first principle, "He who rules best rules less." No one could accuse this Government on that fundamental Conservative belief. They are centralist and interfering, and they make change without any forethought. They get rid of institutions that have served for a long time, and substitute things that are almost bound to be cock-ups from the start. They do not give any value to our exisiting institutions or to the plural aspects of our country, to which most hon. Members and certainly Labour Members, would subscribe.
  We subscribe to the view that there are and should be countervailing centres of power in our society, but Government Members utterly reject that proposition. That is why we reject the schedule and support the amendments. We accept that the amendments fall far short of producing a decent advisory committee because it is impossible by amendment to turn into something useful a measure which starts out profoundly flawed and incapable of performing the task it is supposed to perform. Tory Members and people wo regard themsleves as Conservatives should know that the Government are not Tories: they do not subscribe to any of the decent traditions of British Conservatism. That is why the Conservatives will be rejected at the next election.
  Mr. Freud: This series of amendments looks at the opportunities for consultation. As I drove back here after my bath break between 5.30 and 8 o'clock, I listened—
  Mr. Forth: Lucky you.
  Mr. Freud: Lucky me, indeed. As I drove back I listened to BBC Radio 4 to hear about what was happening in the Committee. The announcer said that the Government were introducing a Bill for "imposed settlement." It is extraordinary that the Secretary of State, who prides himself not only on his use of English but on his correct use of taut English, should believe that such a thing as an imposed settlement exists. It is a contradiction in terms, and the only way it would have any relevance would be if the Secretary of State were to level with those people on whom he will try to impose a concordat. Neither the Bill nor the clause seeks a concordat.
  I remind the Minister and the Secretary of State, who is absent, that the whole point of negotiation is that it provides a safety valve for people before they take more serious and damaging action. By removing that safety valve, the Secretary of State is jeopardising the well-being and continued education of our children.

  575
  Schedule 1 deals with the advisory committee. There is no intention of giving the teachers a fair deal. No attempt has been made to appoint to the committee anyone who will represent and speak up for the teachers or the employers.
  Mr. Dunn: How does the hon. Gentleman know that?
  Mr. Freud: I know because the committee will have no power. It cannot vote for its own chairman because he will be imposed on the committee.
  Mr. Dunn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Freud: Not at the moment. Allow me to finish my sentence.
  This schedule shows contempt for the teachers and for the negotiating procedure and will impose on the teachers what they do not want.
  Mr. Dunn: The hon. Gentleman said there would be no one to speak up for the teachers or for the local education authorities. How does he know? We have not even begun to formulate precisely the interests that will be represented on the advisory committee.
  Mr. Tony Banks: That is disgraceful.
  Mr. Freud: The hon. Member for Newham, Northwest (Mr. Banks) is right. It is disgraceful. It is the job of the legislation to provide facilities for teachers and persuade them that the Bill will look after their interests. The schedule says that anyone who:
  "has become bankrupt or made an arrangement with his creditors, is incapacitated by physical or mental illness,"
  will be removed from the committee. Can the Minister tell us who will be the judge of mental illness? Many people accused his predecessor of being less than totally sane. Would that be a criterion for removing someone from the committee? The schedule also mentions anyone
  "who has been absent from two or more consecutive meetings of the Committee, otherwise than for a reason approved by the Committee".
  Even if that is thought to instill a certain demand on attendance, there is then a catch-all phrase:
  "or who is in the opinion of the Secretary of State otherwise unable or unfit to perform his duties"
  I presume that
  "unfit to perform his duties"
  would mean unfit in the eyes of the Secretary of State to do what he would like him to do, which is to behave in the way in which the patsies who will be put on to the advisory committee will be expected—
  Mr. Dunn: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman was in the Chamber when I spoke a few moments ago. Will he confirm that he was not? If he was not, I direct him to read the report of my remarks in Hansard. I covered the precise point that he is making in my remarks a few moments ago.
  Mr. Freud: If the Minister has said anything to disprove what I am accusing him of, those words should by rights be in the Bill, and more particularly in the schedule. A teacher will read the legislation and ask himself what it contains to protect him. He will want to know what machinery exists to enable teachers, through their unions and democratic negotiating procedure, to be able to bring their justifiable views to the Government's attention. He will not read a report in Hansard to ascertain what the Minister might or might not have said during an early-morning sitting.
  Mr. Tony Banks: Is it not a fact that when a Bill is being considered in Committee it is incumbent upon Members, and certainly Ministers, to ensure that all the good intentions that the Minister of the day might have are set out in clauses? If there is to be a subsequent challenge of an Act in the courts, the judges will not be allowed to read Hansard to ascertain what the Minister was saying at the time and what his good intentions were. Ministers move from one Department to another as ministerial changes are made. Legislation must be precise, and in this instance it is not.
  Mr. Dunn: The Bill is precise.
  Mr. Freud: I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman. It is all very well for the Minister to say from a sedentary position that the Bill is precise, but that can be said only when everything is set out in the Bill, and that is not the position at present.
  On Second Reading, I asked the Minister of State to tell me of any other group of employees who is as disfranchised by negotiating legislation as the teachers will be when the Bill becomes an Act. What other special cases are there? The police are better represented than the teachers will be, and the same can be said of nurses, firemen and water authority employees. As an education spokesman, I deeply resent 400,000 teachers being disadvantaged and disfranchised by being put into a special category of non-representation by this Bill.
  I accept that the Secretary of State deserves power and I do not object to the renunciation of the 1965 Act, but I mind very much what is being put in its place. History will show that it is the wrong measure at the wrong time and that it has been introduced after insufficient consultation. Over the next hours, or days, we shall attempt to persuade the Government to accept that the Bill is capable of amendment to satisfy those who look to us to provide decent legislation for their negotiating system.
  Mr. Evans: I wish briefly to express my contempt for the authors of the Bill. This is ne of the vilest measures ever to be put before the House of Commons. Those who have produced it are not democrats and should be ashamed of themselves. The Bill exposes the complete and utter hypocrisy of the Tory party and all its works.
  I intervened in the debate a short while ago to draw the attention of the House to the fact that the Government have produced three major Bills since 1979 directed to the affairs of the trade union movement. They were the Employment Act 1980, the Employment Act 1982 and the Trade Union Act 1984. We were repeatedly told by Secretaries of State and Ministers for Employment that the Bills had one express purpose—to give trade unions back to trade unionists. The thrust and purpose of the Government's exercise was to democratise the trade union movement. I refer to part I of the Trade Union Act 1984. At the time, the Government insisted that it was aimed at ensuring that trade unionists had the right to elect their executive councils. This clause—
  9.30 am
  The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is coming towards the end of his preamble and will now address himself to the amendment, which relates to the membership of the advisory committee.
  Mr. Evans: The preamble is necessary, Sir Paul. Clause 2 informs us
  "The Secretary of State shall appoint an Advisory Committee on School Teachers' Pay and Conditions to examine and report to him on such matters relating to the remuneration and other conditions of employment of school teachers"—
  in other words, to do the job that those employed in the teaching profession collectively join together to perform, and that is to form a trade union.
  The Government have taken away the trade union from those employed in the teaching profession. They have taken away their executive council. They have removed from the executive council the functions that any trade union should perform — negotiating wages and conditions. The Government, who repeatedly force Bills through the House on the basis of giving trade unions back to their members, have produced a Bill that effectively removes trade unionism from the teaching profession.
  Mr. Dunn: Rubbish.
  Mr. Evans: The Minister says, "Rubbish." Will he tell the House precisely what the National Union of Teachers and other trade unions will do in future in relation to negotiating the pay and conditions of their members? I shall give way to the Minister if he can tell me how I am talking rubbish. The Minister blusters. He cannot answer the question. The clause is aimed at smashing the National Union of Teachers and other teachers' trade unions. Over 400,000 teachers will not forget that fact in the next general election. They will make sure that they, their families and the parents of their pupils will remember that the Tory party forced this evil Bill through the House. They will take their revenge on the Tory party at the next general election.
  Mr. Fatchett: This has been a unique debate. We had to wait for nearly 16 hours to hear the first words from the Under-Secretary of State, and we had to wait virtually the same length of time to hear the initial contribution to the debate by the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Freud), who speaks on behalf of the Liberal party. The debate has confirmed many of our fears.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) referred briefly to ILO convention 151, article 8. He said that the Government's action would transgress that article. The Government's defence is a weak one, but I shall not comment on it legalistically. Their defence is that by simply allowing trade unions the right to make a case and to forward it to the Secretary of State they will satisfy ILO convention 151, article 8. If that is what the Government mean by participation and democracy, it shows what little respect they have for the views of other people and trade unions.
  The hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East made an important point that has come through in the debate generally. He talked about collective bargaining acting as a safety valve. We had a long discussion earlier this morning about the powers and role of ACAS. A number of my hon. Friends pointed out that collective bargaining operates as a safety valve and provides a mechanism whereby industrial conflict can be institutionalised and peace preserved, not just in our schools, but in many other industrial relations aspects. The Bill will take away that layer of institutionalised conflict and bring the teachers' unions much closer towards raw politics. When we return to this debate, as we will from time to
  578
  time, Ministers will be said to be responsible for politicising the teaching profession. I agree with the analysis of the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East on that point.
  The Under-Secretary of State said with great relish that the amendments were "mischievous" and "perverse". I felt that he had waited some time to use those adjectives. It is churlish to call our measurs "mischievous" and "perverse" when we are trying to maintain a certain level of debate.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) made some good points which suggest that many of our fears about the Secretary of State filling the advisory committee with his friends, who do his political work for him, are well founded. That is why we have taken such a strong line against the Bill and the advisory committee. The only point on which I disagreed with my hon. Friend was when he apologised for the fact that he had missed the dawn chorus this morning. He need not worry about that. There is a chance tomorrow and on other days to consider many other amendments, so why should he hide the talents that are clearly there to be used on other occasions?
  If the Under-Secretary of State considers our amendments to be "mischievous" and "perverse", he should note that what is really mischievous and perverse about the Bill is that it will replace collective bargaining with an advisory committee comprised of place men appointed by the Secretary of State. That is why we shall seek a Division on amendment No. 35.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 93, Noes 216.

  Division No. 31]

  [9.33 am

  AYES

  Alton, David

  Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)

  Ashdown, Paddy

  Howarth, George (Knowsley, N)

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Hoyle, Douglas

  Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport East)

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  John, Brynmor

  Barron, Kevin

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Beckett, Mrs Margaret

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Beith, A. J.

  Lamond, James

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

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Bruce, Malcolm

  McKay, Allen (Penistone)

  Buchan, Norman

  McKelvey, William

  Caborn, Richard

  McTaggart, Robert

  Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)

  Marek, Dr John

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Clarke, Thomas

  Martin, Michael

  Clay, Robert

  Maxton, John

  Clelland, David Gordon

  Michie, William

  Coleman, Donald

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Craigen, J. M.

  O'Brien, William

  Dobson, Frank

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Eadie, Alex

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Evans, John (St. Helens N)

  Park, George

  Fatchett, Derek

  Parry, Robert

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)

  Pendry, Tom

  Fisher, Mark

  Pike, Peter

  Flannery, Martin

  Powell, Rt Hon J. E.

  Foster, Derek

  Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

  Foulkes, George

  Radice, Giles

  Freud, Clement

  Richardson, Ms Jo

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Robertson, George

  Hancock, Michael

  Rogers, Allan

  Hardy, Peter

  Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Rowlands, Ted

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Shields, Mrs Elizabeth

  579

  Silkin, Rt Hon J.

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Wareing, Robert

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

  Welsh, Michael

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

  Wrigglesworth, Ian

  Spearing, Nigel

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Stott, Roger

  Thorne, Stan (Preston)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Tinn, James

  Mr. Don Dixon and

  Wainwright, R.

  Mr. Ron Davies.

  Wallace, James

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Gale, Roger

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  Alexander, Richard

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Amess, David

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Ancram, Michael

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Arnold, Tom

  Gow, Ian

  Ashby, David

  Grant, Sir Anthony

  Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

  Greenway, Harry

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

  Gregory, Conal

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

  Batiste, Spencer

  Gummer, Rt Hon John S

  Bellingham, Henry

  Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

  Bendall, Vivian

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Benyon, William

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Hargreaves, Kenneth

  Blackburn, John

  Harris, David

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Hawkins, Sir Paul (N'folk SW)

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

  Hayward, Robert

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Henderson, Barry

  Bright, Graham

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Brinton, Tim

  Hicks, Robert

  Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

  Hill, James

  Browne, John

  Hind, Kenneth

  Bruinvels, Peter

  Hirst, Michael

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Holt, Richard

  Burt, Alistair

  Howard, Michael

  Butcher, John

  Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

  Butterfill, John

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Chope, Christopher

  Jackson, Robert

  Churchill, W. S.

  Jessel, Toby

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

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Key, Robert

  Cockeram, Eric

  King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

  Colvin, Michael

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Coombs, Simon

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Cope, John

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Cormack, Patrick

  Knowles, Michael

  Corrie, John

  Knox, David

  Couchman, James

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Critchley, Julian

  Lang, Ian

  Crouch, David

  Lawler, Geoffrey

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

  Dicks, Terry

  Lilley, Peter

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Dover, Den

  Lord, Michael

  du Cann, Rt Hon Sir Edward

  Lyell, Nicholas

  Dunn, Robert

  McCrindle, Robert

  Durant, Tony

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Eggar, Tim

  MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

  Evennett, David

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Fallon, Michael

  McQuarrie, Albert

  Favell, Anthony

  Madel, David

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  Major, John

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Malins, Humfrey

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Malone, Gerald

  Forth, Eric

  Marland, Paul

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Mather, Carol

  Franks, Cecil

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Freeman, Roger

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Fry, Peter

  Mayhew, Sir Patrick

  580

  Mellor, David

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Merchant, Piers

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

  Shersby, Michael

  Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

  Silvester, Fred

  Moate, Roger

  Sims, Roger

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Morris, M. (N'hampton S)

  Spencer, Derek

  Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Moynihan, Hon C.

  Squire, Robin

  Neale, Gerrard

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Neubert, Michael

  Stern, Michael

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

  Norris, Steven

  Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

  Onslow, Cranley

  Stewart, Ian (Hertf'dshire N)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Page, Sir John (Harrow W)

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Patten, J. (Oxf W & Abgdn)

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Pawsey, James

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

  Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Thurnham, Peter

  Powley, John

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Price, Sir David

  Trotter, Neville

  Proctor, K. Harvey

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Raffan, Keith

  van Straubenzee, Sir W.

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Waddington, David

  Rathbone, Tim

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Waller, Gary

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Ward, John

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Whitfield, John

  Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Wilkinson, John

  Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

  Wood, Timothy

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Woodcock, Michael

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Rowe, Andrew

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Sackville, Hon Thomas

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  Mr. Michael Portillo and

  Scott, Nicholas

  Mr. David Lightbown.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Mr. Freud: I beg to move amendment No. 50, in page 1, line 23, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
  '(3) The Secretary of State shall inform the Committee of any financial or other constraints which he considers to be relevant to their consideration of the remuneration and other conditions of employment of teachers, and as to the time within which they are to submit their report.'.
  The Second Deputy Chairman: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 55, in page 1, line 23, leave out 'direction' and insert—
  'such advice as he considers to be appropriate.'.
  No. 59, in page 1, line 24, leave our from third 'to' to end of line 3 on page 2 and insert—
  'the financial or other constraints and as to the conditions to which they shall have regard in discharging their functions under this Act.'.
  No. 60, in page 2, line 1, leave out 'are' and insert 'may'.
  No. 61, in page 2, line 1, leave out:
  'and financial or other constraints to which their recommendations are to be subject,'.
  No. 62, in page 2, line 1, leave out 'or other'.
  No. 63, in page 2, line 1, leave out 'constraints' and insert 'consideration'.
  No. 64, in page 2, line 1, leave out:
  'to which their recommendations are to be subject'
  and insert—
  'which they may take into accont in their recommendations.'.
  No. 81, in page 2, line 2, after 'subject', insert—
  'which shall include the need to maintain and improve the morale of school teachers'.
  No. 82, in page 2, line 2, after 'subject', insert—

  581
  'which shall include the need to expand provision for teachers' remuneration and other improvements to conditions of service'.
  No. 83, in page 2, line 2, after 'subject', insert—
  'which shall include the achievement and maintenance of a salary structure for teachers which pays proper regard to the value of good classroom teaching.'.
  No. 84, in page 2, line 2, after 'subject', insert—
  'which shall include the value of a properly-financed education service.'.
  No. 87, in page 2, line 3, at end insert—
  '() In any report to the Secretary of State the Committee shall state the considerations to which they have had regard in making their recommendations, together with any comments they may wish to make on the appropriateness of the relevant considerations, and as to any other considerations which would in their view be appropriate for them to have taken into account.'.
  No. 88, in page 2, line 3, at end insert—
  '() The Committee may after the making of a direction under sub-section (2) above publish any considerations which they may consider to be relevant in addition to those specified in the direction, and they may take these into account in making any recommendations to the Secretary of State as though they were specified in the direction.'.
  No. 93, in page 2, line 6, leave out 'direction' and insert 'advice'.
  It will also be convenient I understand to discuss the next group of amendments: No. 94, in page 2, line 6, leave out 'such' and insert 'all'.
  No. 95, in page 2, line 6, after 'authorities', insert—
  ', organisations representing parents.'.
  No. 96, in page 2, line 7, leave out 'such' and insert 'all'.
  No. 97, in page 2, line 7, leave out 'as appear to them to be concerned'.
  No. 98, in page 2, line 8, leave out 'any' and insert 'all'.
  No. 99, in page 2, line 8, leave out from 'education' to 'and' in line 9 and insert 'authorities'.
  No. 100, in page 2, line 10, leave out 'reasonable opportunity of submitting' and insert—
  'period of at least four weeks to submit'.
  No. 102, in page 2, line 11, at end insert—
  '(4A) Such arrangements for submitting evidence and making representations shall include reasonable opportunity for the parties in subsection (4) (a) to discuss and negotiate between them such issues as they require so to consider jointly, whether in the presence of the Committee or otherwise.'.
  Mr. Freud: It is very good to have a morning audience that was significantly missing during the night—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I think that it would be fair to tell hon. Members who have arrived now that they have missed some virtuoso performances. [HON. MEMBERS: "So have you."] I have been here. Above all was the virtuoso performance by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who is a graduate of the Quasimodo school of deportment and who kept the House up for some two hours.
  This series of amendments covers the relationship between the Secretary of State and the advisory committee. That relationship is not dissimilar from that of Idi Amin and his army in their heyday, in that the Secretary of State may say what he will and the advisory committee will do what it is told to do. The Bill allows the Secretary of State to give directions to the committee. Our amendment maintains the link between the Secretary of State and the committee. We concede, for example, that he will have input regarding finance, but we would give
  582
  him the power only to inform the committee and not to direct it. In that way, the committee would pursue its investigations in possession of all the relevant information but independent from the Secretary of State. Above all, our amendment is searching for a modicum of independence in the clause. I hope that when the Minister of State replies, she will give her attention to the independence that there will be on the part of members of the committee.
  Reading the clause, we think that there will be no interest in what the committee might have to say — perhaps a passing interest, but in all the verbiage that we have had, it has become abundantly clear from the Government's responses that they are not interested in anything but the imposition of the Bill on teachers and employers. I have yet to meet a teacher or employer who feels that this emergency measure will be of benefit to them. Certainly it will in no way enhance their status.
  The hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett), who accused me of not speaking for some 14 hours, should concede that in a marathon, it is rather pointless to accuse someone who is running second, third and fourth leg of not contributing greatly to the first. I shall now listen to what the Minister has to say—
  Mr. Fatchett: I should be interested to hear whether the hon. Gentleman wants to hear from the Minister about the principles of running a marathon. The hon. Gentleman said that it was sensible to keep the sprinters until the end of the marathon. We see that he is well fitted for that role. There is a danger that one needs runners in the earliest parts of the marathon. The Minister may well feel that the alliance has not provided us with runners for the earlier part of the marathon.
  Mr. Freud: That intervention was not only stupid but pathetic. We had a five and a seven-hour debate on minor amendments, which many people with a selectivity of wisdom would have felt were less important than the major amendments that are now coming up.
  It seems crucial that we should get the advisory committee right. These amendments deal with the relationship between the Secretary of State and the advisory committee. The Minister was not, of course, being asked to comment on the aesthetics of athletics or marathon running but on the relationship that she feels she will have with the committee and on the power the committee will have to be independent to the extent of choosing its own chairman, to select its own vice-chairman, to make decisions and to have genuine contact with the teachers and the employers so that they will have input that will not be brushed aside by the Secretary of State, but will have statutory powers.
  Mr. Peter Pike: I wish to speak to amendment No. 81, which states:
  "which shall include the need to maintain and improve the morale of school teachers."
  I recognise that with the length of time that some debates have gone on, many issues have already been covered. Obviously with one's eye on the time, one cannot, at this stage cover all the points that are being made in this group of amendments.
  I believe that the morale of the teachers educating our children is vital. It is true to say that over the past few years the morale of teachers has reached a low ebb. Indeed, until there are real and positive changes in direction by the

  583
  Government as a whole and a willingness to provide the resources necessary for education, that situation will continue. We believe that to set up this body is moving in the wrong direction, but we recognise that the Government will be able to force the Bill through because of their majority. However, if it has to go through we believe that morale has to be one of the issues considered by the advisory committee so that it is given proper consideration and importance.
  If the morale of teachers is not good it affects the education of all our children. We want to ensure that the teachers have sufficient interest to be able to give our children a good education. I know that many people have said on numerous occasions that education is one of the biggest single investments that we make for the future of the country. Therefore, it is important that that investment is used to its full advantage.
  We recognise the Government's argument, but we obviously disagree with their approach. However, I am sure that both sides of the Committee recognise that if we are to have a good education system we need teachers whose morale is at a high level. Therefore, it is important to overcome the difficulties of the past couple of years.
  The mail on this issue from my constituency is only just beginning to come through because there was a postal strike in my constituency last week. However, even in the past 24 hours I have opened letters from teachers who are expressing their concern about the way in which the Government are moving and who believe that the Government and the Secretary of State will have so many powers that the power of negotiation and free collective bargaining will rest solely with the Secretary of State. I know that the Secretary of State will argue that that is not the objective and the Government will obviously argue that it is a step forward. However, one has to accept that those working in the education profession, the teachers themselves, do not see it as a step forward. We must accept the view of the teachers on this. The Government have already turned down an amendment which merely provided for consultation on appointments to the advisory committee. Far from improving, morale among teachers is likely to deteriorate. That would be most regrettable.
  10 am
  If the Government have any serious intention to improve the situation in education I hope that they will accept that morale is of great importance. They always say that they do, of course, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) pointed out, what Ministers say in debate is not the law. The law will be the wording of the Bill when it becomes an Act. If the Government believe that improving morale is important, perhaps they will show it by accepting at least amendment No. 81. I am sure that that would be welcomed, not just by the teachers' unions but by all in the teaching profession as well as by the parents of our schoolchildren. This should not be a political issue. It should attract the support of Members on both sides of the House.
  At this stage of the proceedings I shall limit my comments to just one aspect of the amendments, but I am sure that my hon. Friends will wish to speak on the other important points raised by this group of amendments. I believe that the Government recognise the crucial importance of morale among teachers. If that is true, let
  584
  them show it by accepting amendment No. 81 and securing a modest improvement in the retrograde step that they have taken in introducing the Bill.
  Mr. Michael Hancock: It is nice to participate at long last, having sat through six hours of yesterday's proceedings before concluding that what was happening was of no use whatever.
  Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones (Vice Chamberlain of Her Majesty's Household): It is nice to see the hon. Gentleman in the Chamber at long last.
  Mr. Hancock: I am glad to be here.
  The hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) talked about the morale of teachers. I do not believe that prolonging the agony, with one Opposition Member after another trying to gain brownie points from the teacher by speaking for as long as possible, will do anything whatever to boost the morale of teachers, parents, pupils at school or students in sixth form colleges who have seen the dramatic change that has taken place in education in the last five years. It is a travesty to suggest that our proceedings here yesterday, today and perhaps even tomorrow will do anything to alter the teachers' distruct of the Secretary of State's philosophy of trying to hammer things through or that they will induce any kind of confidence among teachers or their union representatives. Nevertheless, the exercise has to be gone through.
  With the Secretary of State, I sat through the long agonies on the Local Government Bill—[HON. MEMBERS: "What is he talking about?"] I am talking about the need to boost morale. I went through that earlier exercise in the mistaken belief that prolonging the Committee stage and speaking for hour upon hour was boosting the morale of councillors trying to save the GLC and the metropolitan councils. I learnt that that was completely untrue. The metropolitan councillors who spoke to me afterwards said that they thought the whole thing was a sham and a farce.
  I went through a similar exercise last year and, for my sins, prolonged the agony of the Dockyard Services Bill by speaking for close on one hour simply to drag out the debate. I was asked whether I was good for an hour. [Interruption.] I have several letters which confirm that I am better than good for more than one hour. It was suggested that it was time that the alliance did its bit to delay the Bill.
  The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is good for an hour at the moment, but his speech must be on this group of amendments.
  Mr. Hancock: I have good news for the House—an hour is not forthcoming today.
  Amendment No. 50 is a step in the right direction. My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Freud) made the alliance's stance on the Bill clear on Second Reading, so criticisms about lack of speeches are ill founded. If the Secretary of State can see through the mud that he has tried to pour over the issue, he will see that amendment No. 50 is a real opportunity to go some small way towards redressing the difficulties that many people envisage.
  Amendment No. 50 would allow a wider understanding of the problems which the Secretary of State, county councils and the advisory committee will face. It might

  585
  also give the people who wrote to me a better understanding of what is going on. Opposition Members have quoted from letters. The Association of Polytechnic Teachers wrote to me expressing its anxieties. If amendment No. 50 is accepted, its representations might be considered. It is represented on Burnham, but the Bill would shut off that representation.
  Mr. Fatchett: I do not want to interrupt the hon. Gentleman's flow, but if he had been here earlier he would know that the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) asked questions about the Association of Polytechnic Teachers and that the Minister gave various commitments. The hon. Gentleman would delay the Committee if he went through those arguments again when the Minister has already given such clear commitments.
  Mr. Hancock: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but the amendments to which he is referring fell. Commitments from Ministers mean nothing, because Ministers and Governments change. Consideration of polytechnic teachers' interests would be embodied in law, however, if amendment No. 50 were accepted. We can all talk about what went on in the past, but so far no amendment has succeeded. Whatever comes after the failure of these amendments should be seen as trying to embrace all the points that have been made.
  I had hoped that the Government would realise, not from the expressions of concern and doubt in the House and the Committee, but by the concern of those at the coal face—the teachers, the parents and the students—the real problems that they are facing. I represent Hampshire, which employs 26,000 teachers. It has been beset with problems over the past two or three years, and those problems have not been helped by the Government's attitude or by that of the trade unions. However, that concern has been real and well founded. It is a sad reflection that something as important as the future of our children and the fabric of our education have been pushed even further over the abyss by this legislation.
  The Bill would be a disaster in educational terms, and should be rejected. The alliance has made its views clear time and again. We would like to see a tripartite approach to negotiations, with the Government, the local authorities as the employers, and the teachers all playing a role, and with the opportunity for parents to have an input. I hope that the people of this country will realise that the only way that success will come to education, and morale in the profession improved, is not through manipulation but through a change of Government to a new Government with a strong realisation that education is as important as our existence on this planet. The only party hat has come near giving anything like that support to education is the alliance.
  I hope that that message goes out. Amendment No. 50 is well worth supporting, and I am sure that all Opposition Members will see that. I hope that those Conservative Members who care about education will see that something that widens involvement in education is critical. We should all be grateful for that opportunity.
  I am only sad that today has denied us two events. One is seeing the Leader of the Opposition, on his return from
  586
  the United States, combating the Prime Minister. One wonders whether there is not a link between today's events and the fact that we shall be denied that opportunity.
  The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not wander too far away from the amendment.
  Mr. Hancock: I was about to wander back to a sedentary position. The other event that the House will be denied is my asking question No. 1 at Prime Minister's Question Time. I am bitterly disappointed about that. The question would have been directed to the events in the House over the past few days and the future of education. I should have liked the right hon. Lady as a former Secretary of State for Education and Science, to explain—
  The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not wander into tomorrow, if tomorrow never takes place.
  Mr. Hancock: I was hoping to draw into my disappointment the fact that my question would have urged the Prime Minister to look carefully at amendment No. 50 and realise the merits of it, and how her colleagues had retreated from their duty in failing to support it. I urge the House to support it, because it gives us a real opportunity to redress some of the damage to education that has been done by the Government over the last three or four years.
  Mrs. Rumbold: I am sorry that I cannot follow the simile about marathon races, because I have never participated in such events although I know that many people do participate. I am sure that the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Freud) would have been excellent at that sport. If he would like to join me in a swim I would be more than happy to challenge him at any time.
  I am glad that, in moving his amendment, the hon. Gentleman recognised that the advisory committee will need to work against the background of the relevant financial constraints. For the interim body we have concluded that the Secretary of State ought to have a more precise power to give directions to the committee about its considerations and its financial or other constraints, because the committee's recommendations will be subject to those constraints as well as to the time within which it has to report.
  The power to give directions should be of considerable benefit to the committee during its interim life. For example, it would be quite stupid for the advisory committee remit not to take into account the financial position of local authorities and I am sure that no Opposition Member would suggest otherwise. The committee will also need to operate within the realistic framework of what local authorities can afford. Most local authorities operate within such a framework.
  Other amendments have a common purpose—to weaken the control of the Secretary of State in determining matters upon which the committee is to advise and deciding within what constraints it should operate. I shall give two examples of this type of weakening. If the amendments were accepted the Secretary of State would not even be able to direct the committee that it ought to have in mind various considerations. Instead, he would be able only to give it advice and clearly, that would not be a sensible way for the advisory committee to set about its

  587
  task. Obviously, and not surprisingly, the Opposition would rather not permit the Secretary of State to advise the committee that its recommendations should be subject to certain financial considerations or, indeed, to any constraints. No doubt they would prefer the committee to assume that resources are totally limitless. It would be folly if the advisory committee's remit did not take into account the financial position of local authorities.
  10.15 am
  Mr. Tony Banks: An advisory committee made up of reasonably intelligent men and women will not do what the Minister suggests—take no notice whatever of financial conditions and be limitless in its approach? It is unrealistic to suggest that. The Minister cannot say that about people.
  Mrs. Rumbold: Of course we expect the advisory committee to work within financial constraints, and it would be helpful if the Secretary of State could advise it about the kind of financial constraints under which it will work. I accept the hon. Gentleman's point. Because they will be reasonable people, we expect that that is the way in which they will operate.
  Mr. George Park: Does the Minister realise that by using the word control she reveals the huge gap between us in the approach to this problem that we all want to see solved? In normal negotiations both sides would set out the position as they see it. The Minister would set down what he saw as the restraints and the teachers' organisations would put forward their case. That is why the Opposition are trying through amendments to persuade the Minister to come back to a negotiating posture, so that all the pros and cons, the restraints and the advantages, can be set on the table and freely negotiated. If that were possible, we would arrive at a mutual agreement. We would have peace in the schools and teachers would know that they had taken part in negotiations for a settlement and had not had a settlement imposed upon them.
  Mrs. Rumbold: The hon. Gentleman is plausible, but the intention behind the amendment is to restrict the role of the Secretary of State in regard to the work of the interim advisory committee. The open-endedness of the terms of reference that Opposition Members would wish to see go very much along the lines that have been set out during the debate. It is important to remember that the advisory committee is being brought into place to replace arrangements that have failed. In turn, the committee will be succeeded, we hope, in due course, by other arrangements, which will have been duly discussed by the parties concerned, which will have been consulted.
  In the brief time that the advisory committee will be in existence it will have a job to do. It will need some direction on the matters relating to pay and conditions of service on which it is to concentrate. I suggest that that is a proper function for the holder of my right hon. Friend's office. That function is to give assistance and any direction that it is appropriate to give on other constraints to which the recommendations are to be subject. It is on the basis of that clear approach that the committee should be able to give of its best.
  Labour Members and the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) spent some time discussing the raising of morale in the teaching profession.
  588
  The hon. Gentleman's opposition to the Government's reasonable proposition is the factor that will damage the teachers most in the long term. Our proposals include a substantial pay increase for teachers next year and the putting into place of an effective system of pay determination in the medium term.
  Mr. Hancock: I understand what the Minister is saying, and no one appreciates the need for teachers to have a decent pay rise more than I do. I support that proposition wholeheartedly. I shall be interested to know whether the hon. Lady considers that amendment No. 50 will cause teachers to think that they will not have better vehicle for negotiations in future. I shall be interested also to know whether she can state to what she objects in amendment No. 50. If she reads it carefully, she will appreciate that its wording is far better than the relevant passage in the Bill. I think that the hon. Lady owes those who are associated with the amendment a proper explanation of what is it she sees that will constrain the Secretary of State, other than telling the truth to his appointees.
  Mrs. Rumbold: I have already paid tribute to those who tabled amendment No. 50 in so far as it recognises that there is a need to have a financial constraint placed upon the interim committee. My right hon. Friend and I understand what those who are associated with the amendment have tried to do. We do not accept that it is quite as good or accurate as the relevant passage in the Bill, but we recognise the attempt that has been made to put forward their point of view.
  The hon. Member for Portsmouth, South contended that the low morale of teachers would continue if the Bill were to be enacted. I am trying to explain to him as best as I can—poorly, I know—that it is our belief that the proposals that are set out in the Bill will give the teachers stability and the certain knowledge that there will be a system for determination of their pay in the medium term. This will enable them to raise their morale and to return to work feeling that there is at least a Government who care about the way in which their pay structure should be dealt with and the way in which they operate within the schools. We feel that that is most important.
  A number of other amendments have been brought to the attention of the Committee. There are issues such as the advisory committee having the discretion to decide which association of local education authorities appears to it to be concerned. It is possible that some authorities could form themselves into a group or association that had no common interest in teachers' pay and conditions. It would be somewhat irrelevant for the Government to accept amendments of that character, and most of the amendments before us fall into that category. I suggest that the Committee rejects them.
  Mr. Fatchett: At this stage of the debate, it may be useful to state the official Opposition's position in relation to amendment No. 50. The hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Freud), the spokesman for the Liberal party, said that the Liberals had prioritised amendment No. 50. It was an amendment of supreme and significant importance. If hon. Members have a policy of priorities and pick on particular issues, it is important that we develop a strategy at the early part of the debate.
  It is clear that the alliance strategy has worked. Alliance Members waited until amendment No. 50 was under discussion, to "'major" on it, to use an American

  589
  expression. Liberal Members had not spoken until 9.45 am, when the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East spoke for 17 minutes. He preserved himself for his contribution to the debate on this important amendment. Alliance Members did not intervene. They saved all their fire power for amendment No. 50. So far, the total contributions to the debate, in this process of prioritising, by the alliance parties—even with the hon. Gentleman's contribution—comprised 36 minutes contribution to the total debate over 118 hours. Without trying to be too much of a mathematician, that totals 3·33 per cent. between the two parties. Clearly—[AN HON. MEMBER: "It is like an opinion poll".] And it is like an opinion poll rating. Clearly, the policy of prioritising amendment No. 50 worked perfectly. Alliance Members waited until that point.
  Nobody would disagree with the purpose of the amendment. To a great extent, it is self-fulfilling and self-satisfying. We will support the amendment because any attempt to get some information out of the Secretary of State as to the contraints under which the advisory body will operate will be of benefit. If alliance parties Members examine their own amendment, they will see that it is badly drafted. I shall ask my hon. Friends to support it, but they may be worried about supporting it for certain reasons. I do not know whether the Minister commented upon this matter. The alliance amendment states:
  "The Secretary of State shall inform the Committee of any financial constraints".
  If political parties claim to believe in the disclosure of information into the public domain, it would be important that not only does the Secretary of State inform the advisory committee but that he makes that information available to the relevant parties.
  If we are to "major" on an amendment, it is crucially important that that amendment is right. It may take us back to some of the arguments that we used in which we suggested that there had been a rush from Second Reading to Committee. If there had been more time, the inconsistencies of the amendment would have been noted.
  I ask my hon. Friends to support the amendment simply on the ground that we wish more constraints to be placed upon the advisory committee. We say to the alliance parties, "When you do it again, please do better. Please make sure that you think through all the implications. If you are to have a flow of information, we would like it in the public domain because that is where it should be". We previously thought that that was the policy of the alliance parties. It clearly is not the case. Maybe this belief in secrecy has characterised the alliance parties' contribution to the debate.
  Mr. Rogers: The clause emphasises the central role that the Secretary of State intends to take in the future settlement of teachers' demands about pay and conditions of work. The Minister said that the committee should have regard to the financial position of local authorities. In saying that, the Minister put the importance of local authorities in the payment and employment of teachers at the centre of the debate. It is strange that she should emphasise that the local authorities' financial position should be one of the main considerations of the committee, because it is not intended that they should be represented
  590
  on it. Thus local authorities will have to pick up the bill for 54 per cent. of the teachers' remuneration without having any say.
  10.30 am
  The Minister and her Friends continually say, "Why should the Burnham committee reach a settlement but the Government have to pick up the tab?" They imply that the Government are dispensing their own money, and not money that belongs to the people.
  Clause 2 proposes setting up a body that will recommend the amount of expenditure made by the local authorities—they will pay the bulk of it—without giving them any representation. Therefore, the Government are confounded and defeated by their own argument. They will not accept the amendment because of their dogmatic attitude towards wage earners. That just shows the nonsense of their blind hatred towards people who earn salaries and wages, as opposed to those who can fix commissions or charge fees to earn their living.
  I am sorry that the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) has left the Chamber, because I should have liked to address my comments to him directly. I have to admit that I am one of those hon. Members who had a reasonable night's sleep, and who came back early this morning to participate in the debate. It was a pleasure for me to see the newly risen hon. Member for Portsmouth, South come into the Chamber, looking very spruce, to address us this morning—[Interruption.] It is no surprise that he is known as the part-time hon. Member for Portsmouth, South. However, I did not like the fact that he made me feel so sad. He said that he was sad, but I have never heard a more depressing speech. He spoke first about the length of the debate—not that he had been here. He then said that we were not giving support and morale to the teachers, although he did not even suggest an alternative. He spoke about travesties and disasters, and said that the debate was a sham and a farce. I imagine that he spent the night consulting some thesaurus. It was suggested that he might be good for a speech lasting an hour, but if it was going to be an hour of that, I am sure that we would all have found our way to a clinic.
  Mr. Fatchett: Last night I intervened when my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) commented on the absence of members of the alliance parties and, among other things, on the way in which ACAS works. I reminded my hon. Friend that at a rally yesterday in Central hall, Westminster, which was organised by the National Union of Teachers, the SDP spokesman, Anne Sofer, committed the SDP to fighting the Bill line by line. Does my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) feel that Anne Sofer's remarks were consistent with the policies set out by the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South?
  Mr. Rogers: I shall not comment on the position of either Anne Sofer or the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South, but I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has not returned to the Chamber. I shall not stray into discussing ACAS, because, as the hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones) knows, our flat Welsh vowels create problems for us in pronouncing the second part of ACAS.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) is absolutely right in saying that the SDP gives promises but does not fulfil them. Alliance Members come

  591
  to the Chamber and try to depress us. Hon. Members were enjoying the night, and found a great thrill in the arguments of the debate, the constructive attitudes of the Opposition, and the negative arguments adopted by the Government. Then the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South came here in such a defeatist mood, and that has made me very sad.
  The amendment is vital and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central said earlier, Opposition Members will have to support it. Indeed, the alliance amendments are important because they seek to put the position of the local authorities and of the advisory committee at the centre of the argument.
  Mr. Tony Banks: The Minister said that those on the advisory committee could, if they were not given directions about financial constraints, act in such a way as to assume that there were no constraints. I do not know who the Minister or the Secretary of State are considering appointing to the advisory committee. Indeed, that is one of the problems. I have not sat through all the debate. I was here until about 2 am, but then I left for four or five hours. Therefore, I do not know whether the Minister has told the Committee the names of the people who will be on the advisory committee.
  Mrs. Rumbold: No, I have not.
  Mr. Banks: If the Minister has not advised hon. Members of that, one can assume only that the list exists somewhere. I imagine that it will be difficult to get anybody with any self-respect to serve on the advisory committee. However, as there is little self-respect in the Tory party these days, the Minister's job will not be that difficult, because those appointed will probably all be hand-picked Tories. Even if they are hand-picked Tories, it is difficult to accept that they will not be aware of the general financial problems. They would be peculiarly detached if they were not aware of the financial positions of the Government and the local authorities.
  I also found it strange that the Minister said that, if one has an advisory committee, one gives it directions on financial matters. I should have thought that an advisory committee would be able to look at a situation impartially and to offer advice to the Secretary of State. Under the Bill, the Secretary of State is under no compulsion to accept any advice that he is given. Why bother to give the advisory committee directions if the Secretary of State can ultimately ignore its advice, even if that advice is within the constraints of the directions that he has given them?
  Quite frankly, the committee will be a stooge or a poodle committee. Whatever adjective one uses, nobody with any self-respect or standing in education is likely to want to serve on that sort of committee. Therefore, we shall look with great interest at the names of those people. Perhaps some people hope to serve and to be rewarded eventually by elevation to the other place, or by the baubles that the Prime Minister can hand out from time to time.
  I did not propose to speak to the amendment until my hon. Friends started discussing the fact that education authorities pay about 54 per cent. of the costs of teachers' salaries. Overall, that is no doubt true. However, in the absence of block grant, the Inner London education authority pays 100 per cent. of the pay bill of inner London teachers. Under the Bill, it will lose any effective influence that it has, other than through consultation. It
  592
  is unacceptable that the Government, who pay nothing at all, should have the temerity to say that they will tell ILEA, which pays everything, what it must do. That is thoroughly unacceptable, and that is why I support the amendment.
  Mr. Freud: After 10 hours of debate, I suggested that we might make progress. There were enraged cries from Labour Members who explained that, far from taking their time on a specific batch of amendments, they were using the Committee of the whole House procedure as we would normally use such procedure upstairs in Committee. With the promise that that would be continued throughout the passage of the Bill, I did not beg to move, That the Question be now put. I have been here for all but three hours of the debate—[Interruption.] The Chair refused the closure, and I did not seek to move it again, although that debate continued for another five and a half hours. However, 15½ hours of debate on clause 1 and less than three hours of debate on clause 2 would seem to fall short of that promise.
  The hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) said that we majored on amendment No. 50. We certainly believe that the committee's constitution is of considerable importance. Indeed, we consider clause 2 to be of great importance. The amendment asks that
  "The Secretary of State shall inform the Committee of any financial or other constraints which he considers to be relevant to their consideration of the remuneration and other conditions of employment of teachers, and as to the time within which they are to submit their report."
  However flawed the amendment may be in the eyes of hon. Members in that it does not make a great song and dance about freedom of information, it remains eminently acceptable. I cannot see why the Minister should look into the middle distance or why she should do anything but accept it. If the hon. Member for Leeds, Central wants to add the rider that all information should be freely given to those who want to be in receipt of it, we will certainly not object.
  The hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) has left the Chamber, but he made a relevant point when he said that the teachers' morale was crucial. If we can get any good out of this defective legislation, it must be to persuade the teachers that it will, to some extent, be to their benefit. To date, a vast amount of time has been taken up in acccusations and counter accusations about the absence of hon. Members at specific times. It is only fair to put on record that we have been here for 18½ hours so far, and no hon. Member can remain conscious in the Chamber for that long. It is twice as long as an HGV driver is allowed to drive under EEC regulations. I hope, therefore, that hon. Members will stop scoring cheap points about the temporary absences of certain hon. Members.
  Throughout this debate, the Benches of all three participating parties have been manned. If the alliance bench has not been as heavily manned as other Benches, the iniquities of our electoral system are to blame. However, on a percentage basis we are even now more heavily represented in the Chamber than any other party.
  Mr. Rogers: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that we were not criticising him or his Liberal colleagues who have participated in the debate. We were stung into retaliating because no SDP Member was present. The hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) had the gall to come into the Chamber and to castigate hon. Members who had been in the Chamber for 18½ hours. We

  593
  were not scoring cheap political points but responding to the hon. Gentleman's cheek in saying that. I hope that the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Freud) will accept that intervention in the spirit in which it is made.
  The Second Deputy Chairman: Now that we have got that off our chests, I hope that we can return to the amendments.
  10.45 am
  Mr. Freud: I would, of course, accept absolutely anything in the spirit in which it was offered. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock), who has been here for much longer than the average hon. Member, made an important point when he voiced the concern of his constituency teachers.
  Mr. Hanley: Look at the voting records.
  Mr. Freud: That sort of attitude is totally unconstructive.
  The Minister spoke of a more precise power that was to be given to the Secretary of State. I wonder what she means. At present, the Secretary of State has the power to ignore any contribution. Clause 3 states:
  "Where the Advisory Committee has reported to the Secretary of State on any matter, he may, after consulting—

  (a) such associations of local education authorities as appear to him to be … desirable."

  That will not make teachers feel wanted or respected. The clause also refers to
  "such organisations representing school teachers as appear to them to be concerned".
  We want teachers and employers to have the right to have some input into the advisory committee.
  I realise that the Minister has things to say to the Under-Secretary of State, and that she would rather do that than listen to the debate. However, it is absurd to make us sit through proceedings on this Bill if she does not intend to listen to our reasonable amendments. This series of amendments would make the teachers and employers respect the committee a little more than they will do, given that the Bill is so negative. They should, therefore, be accepted by Opposition Members. Indeed, although there may be internal sniping, the Opposition are united in disagreeing with the Bill and all that it represents. I therefore ask all hon. Members—heaven knows, there are few enough in the House, and we had more at 3 am than we have now—to vote in favour of the amendments, and against this nasty little Bill.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 137, Noes 224.

  Division No.32]

  [10.48 am

  AYES

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Blair, Anthony

  Alton, David

  Boothroyd, Miss Betty

  Anderson, Donald

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Caborn, Richard

  Ashdown, Paddy

  Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)

  Ashton, Joe

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Clarke, Thomas

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Clay, Robert

  Barron, Kevin

  Clelland, David Gordon

  Beckett, Mrs Margaret

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

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

  Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Coleman, Donald

  594

  Conlan, Bernard

  Madden, Max

  Cook, Frank (Stockton North)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)

  Martin, Michael

  Corbett, Robin

  Maxton, John

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Craigen, J. M.

  Meacher, Michael

  Crowther, Stan

  Meadowcroft, Michael

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Michie, William

  Cunningham, Dr John

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Dewar, Donald

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Dixon, Donald

  O'Brien, William

  Dormand, Jack

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Dubs, Alfred

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Eadie, Alex

  Park, George

  Eastham, Ken

  Parry, Robert

  Evans, John (St. Helens N)

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Fatchett, Derek

  Pendry, Tom

  Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)

  Pike, Peter

  Fisher, Mark

  Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

  Flannery, Martin

  Radice, Giles

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Raynsford, Nick

  Foster, Derek

  Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

  Foulkes, George

  Rogers, Allan

  Freud, Clement

  Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)

  Garrett, W. E.

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Godman, Dr Norman

  Rowlands, Ted

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

  Gould, Bryan

  Shields, Mrs Elizabeth

  Gourlay, Harry

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Hamilton, James (M'well N)

  Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

  Hamilton, W. W. (Fife Central)

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

  Hancock, Michael

  Silkin, Rt Hon J.

  Hardy, Peter

  Skinner, Dennis

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

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

  Heffer, Eric S.

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

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Snape, Peter

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  Soley, Clive

  Howells, Geraint

  Spearing, Nigel

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Janner, Hon Greville

  Stott, Roger

  John, Brynmor

  Straw, Jack

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Thorne, Stan (Preston)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Tinn, James

  Kennedy, Charles

  Wainwright, R.

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Lambie, David

  Wareing, Robert

  Lamond, James

  Weetch, Ken

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Winnick, David

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Wrigglesworth, Ian

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  McCartney, Hugh

  McKay, Allen (Penistone)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  McKelvey, William

  Mr. A. J. Beith and

  MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

  Mr. James Wallace.

  McTaggart, Robert

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Bright, Graham

  Alexander, Richard

  Brinton, Tim

  Amess, David

  Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

  Ancram, Michael

  Bruinvels, Peter

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.

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

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Butcher, John

  Baldry, Tony

  Butterfill, John

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Carlisle, John (Luton N)

  Batiste, Spencer

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Cash, William

  Bendall, Vivian

  Chalker, Mrs Lynda

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Chope, Christopher

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Churchill, W. S.

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

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

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

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

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Cockeram, Eric

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Colvin, Michael

  595

  Coombs, Simon

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Cope, John

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Cormack, Patrick

  Lyell, Nicholas

  Corrie, John

  McCrindle, Robert

  Critchley, Julian

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Dicks, Terry

  McQuarrie, Albert

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Madel, David

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

  Major, John

  Dunn, Robert

  Malins, Humfrey

  Durant, Tony

  Malone, Gerald

  Dykes, Hugh

  Marland, Paul

  Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

  Marlow, Antony

  Eggar, Tim

  Mather, Carol

  Evennett, David

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Eyre, Sir Reginald

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Fallon, Michael

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Mayhew, Sir Patrick

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Mellor, David

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

  Franks, Cecil

  Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

  Freeman, Roger

  Moate, Roger

  Fry, Peter

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Gale, Roger

  Morris, M. (N'hampton S)

  Galley, Roy

  Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  Moynihan, Hon C.

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Neale, Gerrard

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Neubert, Michael

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Onslow, Cranley

  Gow, Ian

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Greenway, Harry

  Ottaway, Richard

  Gregory, Conal

  Page, Sir John (Harrow W)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

  Patten, Christopher (Bath)

  Gummer, Rt Hon John S

  Patten, J. (Oxf W & Abgdn)

  Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

  Pattie, Geoffrey

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Pawsey, James

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Hannam, John

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Hargreaves, Kenneth

  Price, Sir David

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Proctor, K. Harvey

  Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

  Raffan, Keith

  Hawkins, Sir Paul (N'folk SW)

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Hayward, Robert

  Rathbone, Tim

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Henderson, Barry

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Hicks, Robert

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Hill, James

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Hind, Kenneth

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Hirst, Michael

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

  Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Holt, Richard

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Howard, Michael

  Rowe, Andrew

  Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  Hunter, Andrew

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Scott, Nicholas

  Jackson, Robert

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Jessel, Toby

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Jones, Robert (Herts W)

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Key, Robert

  Shersby, Michael

  King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

  Sims, Roger

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Spencer, Derek

  Knowles, Michael

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Knox, David

  Squire, Robin

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Lang, Ian

  Stern, Michael

  Latham, Michael

  Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

  Lawler, Geoffrey

  Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

  Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

  Stewart, Ian (Hertf'dshire N)

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Lester, Jim

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Lilley, Peter

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  596

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.

  Whitfield, John

  Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Wolfson, Mark

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Wood, Timothy

  Trippier, David

  Woodcock, Michael

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Waller, Gary

  Mr. David Lightbown and

  Ward, John

  Mr. Michael Portillo.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 229, Noes 145.

  Division No. 33]

  [10.59 am

  AYES

  Adley, Robert

  Fallon, Michael

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Alexander, Richard

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Amess, David

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Ancram, Michael

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Franks, Cecil

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

  Freeman, Roger

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Fry, Peter

  Baldry, Tony

  Gale, Roger

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Galley, Roy

  Batiste, Spencer

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Bendall, Vivian

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Gow, Ian

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Greenway, Harry

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Gregory, Conal

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

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Gummer, Rt Hon John S

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Bright, Graham

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Brinton, Tim

  Hannam, John

  Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

  Hargreaves, Kenneth

  Bruinvels, Peter

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.

  Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Hawkins, Sir Paul (N'folk SW)

  Butcher, John

  Hayward, Robert

  Butterfill, John

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Carlisle, John (Luton N)

  Henderson, Barry

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Hicks, Robert

  Cash, William

  Hill, James

  Chalker, Mrs Lynda

  Hind, Kenneth

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Hirst, Michael

  Chope, Christopher

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Churchill, W. S.

  Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

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

  Holt, Richard

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Howard, Michael

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

  Cockeram, Eric

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Colvin, Michael

  Hunter, Andrew

  Coombs, Simon

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Cope, John

  Jessel, Toby

  Cormack, Patrick

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Corrie, John

  Jones, Robert (Herts W)

  Critchley, Julian

  Kershaw, Sir Anthony

  Crouch, David

  Key, Robert

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Dicks, Terry

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

  Knowles, Michael

  Dunn, Robert

  Knox, David

  Dykes, Hugh

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

  Lang, Ian

  Eggar, Tim

  Latham, Michael

  Evennett, David

  Lawler, Geoffrey

  Eyre, Sir Reginald

  Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

  597

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Lester, Jim

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Lightbown, David

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Lilley, Peter

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Rowe, Andrew

  Lyell, Nicholas

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  McCrindle, Robert

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

  Scott, Nicholas

  Maclean, David John

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  McQuarrie, Albert

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Madel, David

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Major, John

  Shersby, Michael

  Malins, Humfrey

  Sims, Roger

  Malone, Gerald

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Marland, Paul

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Marlow, Antony

  Spencer, Derek

  Mather, Carol

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Squire, Robin

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Stern, Michael

  Mayhew, Sir Patrick

  Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

  Mellor, David

  Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

  Merchant, Piers

  Stewart, Ian (Hertf'dshire N)

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Mills, Iain (Meriden)

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Moate, Roger

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.

  Morris, M. (N'hampton S)

  Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

  Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

  Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

  Moynihan, Hon C.

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Neale, Gerrard

  Thurnham, Peter

  Neubert, Michael

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Trippier, David

  Onslow, Cranley

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  van Straubenzee, Sir W.

  Ottaway, Richard

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Page, Sir John (Harrow W)

  Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

  Patten, Christopher (Bath)

  Waller, Gary

  Patten, J. (Oxf W & Abgdn)

  Ward, John

  Pattie, Geoffrey

  Warren, Kenneth

  Pawsey, James

  Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Whitfield, John

  Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Portillo, Michael

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Wolfson, Mark

  Price, Sir David

  Wood, Timothy

  Proctor, K. Harvey

  Woodcock, Michael

  Raffan, Keith

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Rathbone, Tim

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Mr. Tony Durant

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Mr. Peter Lloyd.

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  NOES

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Buchan, Norman

  Alton, David

  Caborn, Richard

  Anderson, Donald

  Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)

  Ashdown, Paddy

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Ashton, Joe

  Clarke, Thomas

  Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

  Clay, Robert

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Clelland, David Gordon

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Barron, Kevin

  Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)

  Beckett, Mrs Margaret

  Coleman, Donald

  Beith, A. J.

  Conlan, Bernard

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

  Cook, Frank (Stockton North)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)

  Blair, Anthony

  Corbett, Robin

  Boothroyd, Miss Betty

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

  Boyes, Roland

  Craigen, J. M.

  Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

  Crowther, Stan

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  598

  Cunningham, Dr John

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)

  Meadowcroft, Michael

  Dixon, Donald

  Michie, William

  Dobson, Frank

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Dormand, Jack

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Dubs, Alfred

  O'Brien, William

  Eadie, Alex

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Eastham, Ken

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Evans, John (St. Helens N)

  Park, George

  Fatchett, Derek

  Parry, Robert

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)

  Pendry, Tom

  Fisher, Mark

  Pike, Peter

  Flannery, Martin

  Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Radice, Giles

  Foster, Derek

  Raynsford, Nick

  Foulkes, George

  Redmond, Martin

  Freud, Clement

  Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

  Garrett, W. E.

  Rogers, Allan

  Godman, Dr Norman

  Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Gould, Bryan

  Rowlands, Ted

  Gourlay, Harry

  Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

  Hamilton, W. W. (Fife Central)

  Shields, Mrs Elizabeth

  Hancock, Michael

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Hardy, Peter

  Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

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

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Silkin, Rt Hon J.

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Skinner, Dennis

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

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

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

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

  Howells, Geraint

  Snape, Peter

  Hughes, Roy (Newport East)

  Soley, Clive

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Janner, Hon Greville

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  John, Brynmor

  Stott, Roger

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Strang, Gavin

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Straw, Jack

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)

  Kennedy, Charles

  Thorne, Stan (Preston)

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Tinn, James

  Lambie, David

  Wainwright, R.

  Lamond, James

  Wallace, James

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Leighton, Ronald

  Wareing, Robert

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Weetch, Ken

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Welsh, Michael

  McCartney, Hugh

  Winnick, David

  McKelvey, William

  Wrigglesworth, Ian

  MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  McTaggart, Robert

  Madden, Max

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Mr. James Hamilton and

  Martin, Michael

  Mr. Allen McKay.

  Maxton, John

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3

  POWER OF SECRETARY OF STATE TO MAKE PROVISION BY ORDER
  Mr. Radice: I beg to move amendment No. 126, in page 2, line 16, leave out 'may' and insert 'shall'.
  The Second Deputy Chairman: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 139, in page 2, line 22, leave out from beginning, to end of line 20 on page 3 and insert—
  'from time to time (and as soon as may be) lay before Parliament the report of the Advisory Committee. If such a Report is disapproved by a resolution of either House of Parliament passed within forty days beginning with the date of laying (and exclusive of any period during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued or during which both

  599
  Houses are adjourned for more than four days) then the Secretary of State shall as soon as may be make such changes or further changes in the Report as appear to him to be required in the circumstances so that the statement of those changes be laid before Parliament at latest by the end of the period of forty days beginning with the date of the resolution (but exclusive as aforesaid).'
  No. 143, in page 2, line 23, leave out from 'Committee' to end of line 25.
  No. 144, in page 2, line 23, leave out 'with or'.
  No. 145, in page 2, line 23, leave out from 'modification' to end of line 25, and insert—
  'providing any modifications have first been referred back to the Advisory Committee for further consultation prior to the placing of any order.'.
  No. 146, in page 2, line 24, leave out lines 24 and 25.
  No. 153, in page 2, line 26, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
  '(2) Any order made following the recommendations of the Committee under section 3(1), shall not be made unless a draft of the order has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.'.
  No. 156, in page 2, line 26, leave out 'which contains" and insert 'must contain'.
  New clause 10—Provisions as to Orders—

  '(1) An order may, instead of containing the provision to be made, refer to provisions set out in a document published by Her Majesty's Stationery Office and direct that those provisions shall have effect or, as the case may be, be amended in accordance with the order.

  (2) The effect of an order is—

  (a) so far as it relates to remuneration, that the remuneration of teachers to whom the order applies shall be determined, and they are to have regard and financial or other constraints to which their recommendations are to be subject, and as to the time within which they are to report to him.

  (3) An order made under this Act may make retrospective provision but not so as to require the reduction of a.teachers pay in respect of a past period.

  (4) No order made under sections 4 and 5 of this Act may make different provision for different areas or for different cases otherwise then in accordance with an agreement made between teachers and their employers.

  (5) The Secretary of State may not approve any recommendation of the Advisory Committee as regards conditions of employment so as to remove or diminish any contractual entitlement of a teacher.'.

  Mr. Radice: As we should all know after 18 or 19 hours of discussion, the objective of the Bill is to abolish collective bargaining and substitute in its place a system of ministerial diktat. The purpose of this group of amendments is to highlight the exceptional and unacceptable powers that clause 3 grants to the Secretary of State.
  I should like to remind the Committee of the powers that will be granted. Clause 3(6) allows the Secretary of State to impose a settlement by order before 1 October 1987. It will also be possible for the Secretary of State to backdate any order to April 1986. That is the first exceptional power. I need not remind the Minister that it is a new power. Contrary to what the Secretary of State told us, he does not have that power under the Remuneration of Teachers Act 1965 or under the Education Act 1944. Once the advisory committee is set up—and we should remember that the Secretary of State will appoint the members of the committee, he will pay for it, set its agenda and also choose the chairman and deputy chairman—the Secretary of State can modify recommendations and impose his own settlement.
  When the Secretary of State makes an order, he or she can make provision for different areas. That point has
  600
  been highlighted earlier. He can also impose conditions of service on teachers through their contracts of employment, though the Government do not employ teachers. The local authorities are, of course, their employers. The Secretary of State can impose on the local authorities the obligation to impose conditions of service through teachers' contracts of employment. That is a most unusual and exceptional power that has been commented upon by the Opposition during the debate and by commentators outside Parliament.
  I am terribly sorry, but I seem to have forgotten the name of the Deputy Chairman. Of course, it is Sir Paul; Forgive me, Sir Paul; after 18 hours of debate it is a dreadful insult to forget your name and I apologise for that.
  The Opposition amendments are designed to minimise the damage caused by clause 3 and I do not pretend that they will do more than minimise that damage. No doubt my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) will discuss the amendments in more detail when he replies. In principle we oppose the authoritarian assumption of ministerial powers. Therefore we will not only be voting for our amendments but, if we have the opportunity, will vote against clause 3 stand part.
  Mrs. Rumbold: It would be for the convenience of the House if I tried to explain the Government's position with regard to the amendment so that I can clarify the position before the debate continues.
  Mr. Radice: It would also be useful, as this is in a sense a clause 3 stand part debate—I doubt whether we shall have an opportunity to have a clause 3 stand part debate—if the Secretary of State will tell the Committee why he is taking the powers that I have outlined.
  11.15am
  Mrs. Rumbold: I believe that the hon. Gentleman is referring to the power to backdate.
  Mr. Radice: No, I did not mean that.
  Mrs. Rumbold: Very well, I will consider the amendments as they appear on the Amendment Paper and proceed to consider amendment No. 126 which seeks to delete "may" and insert "shall".
  The amendment would, in effect, compel the Secretary of State to make some provision by order after receiving a report from the advisory committee. It is certainly expected that on most occasions when the advisory committee has reported to the Secretary of State, he will proceed to make such an order after consultation with the local authorities and trade unions. However, that may not always be so. The committee may have been asked to report on a simple, single issue, for example, problems of shortage subjects. The committee might recommend a course of action that entailed changing present remuneration. The Secretary of State might then consult the local authorities and/or unions. As a result of the consultations, he might be persuaded that the advisory committee's advice should not be taken and that it would be better to leave matters as they were.
  If the clause was amended, that discretion would not rest with the Secretary of State and he would be compelled to make an order on the subject even if he had no changes to propose. It is better to have discretion which Opposition Members may be absolutely assured that the Secretary of State will use sensibly and reasonably.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does the Minister accept that under the provisions in the Bill, the Secretary of State will hand pick his committee and if it makss a recommendation that he does not like, he can veto it again at that stage?
  Mrs. Rumbold: The Secretary of State is bound to consult local authorities and the unions. Having done that, he may have to explain his views and they may explain theirs. He must act reasonably. Whatever his advice, the Secretary of State must bring it to the House. If he chooses not to alter that advice, as we have explained before, it will be subject to a negative resolution. In other words, Opposition Members may call for a debate on a negative resolution.
  If, on the other hand, the Secretary of State receives advice that he wants to alter, he must bring that to the House on an affirmative resolution and that will be debated on the Floor of both Houses. There is a safeguard for this House and the other place to have adequate debate on the subject.
  Amendment No. 139 seeks to delete most of clause 3 including all of the order-making powers of the Secretary of State and put in its place a provision that the reports of the advisory committee are to be laid before Parliament and subject to disapproval by resolution of either House and subsequent amendment. There is no power left to the Secretary of State or anyone else to make the recommendations in the report effective. That is a little difficult to understand, and I am not sure that I follow the arrangements as envisaged in the amendment.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: The aim of the amendment is to get over the problem that always faces the House of Commons that when it receives an order it can either approve it or throw it out. A package may contain five or six good points and one to which the majority in the House might object, yet that package may still be passed.
  The amendment is a device to enable the House to amend the order, and transfers considerable power back to the House rather than to the Minister. I expect to hear reasons why the Government oppose the amendment. However, if they are claiming to be granting Parliament safeguards and control over the Secretary of State, then they should accept the amendment.
  Mrs. Rumbold: By the time such a matter came to the House in the form of a negative or an affirmative resolution, I would hope that there would have been adequate consultation and agreement between the parties seeking to implement the advisory committee's proposals.
  Mr. Freud: The Minister has said that there shall be adequate consultation. She will notice that the amendment asks for no more than that. It simply asks that "may" be deleted and "shall" be substituted. She said that there shall be more consultation. I cannot understand why the Government cannot accept this minor amendment.
  Mrs. Rumbold: I have been trying to explain, somewhat tediously, the difference between the words, "may" and "shall". If we have "shall", that is an imperative, and the Secretary of State has to make an order even if there is nothing on which he can make an order. Amendment No. 139 is strange because, in effect, it suggests that Parliament would censure a report by an independent body such as the advisory committee. As there is no machinery for implementing the advisory committee's recommendations, such arrangements are clearly absurd. I ask the Committee to reject the amendment.
  602
  Amendments Nos. 143, 144 and 146 would render the consultation with local authorities and unions about the committee's recommendations pointless. Whatever that consultation produced, the Secretary of State would have to implement the committee's recommendations as delivered. That gives the committee a greater power and a much more powerful role than is intended. The committee's recommendations should be subject to full consultation between local authorities and the unions. We do not want that to be ruled out.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: The hon. Lady is not looking at the picture built up by the group of amendments. If she accepts the power of the House to amend the orders, it can make considerable sense to follow that through. I accept the hon. Lady's argument that it would be illogical for us to press this little group of amendments on its own, but, taken in conjunction with amendment No. 139, powers to vary the orders, would be given to the House instead of to the Secretary of State.
  Mrs. Rumbold: That would be an extremely untidy arrangement and certainly would not comply with my right hon. Friend's vision of the clear advice that the advisory committee will give after it has had an opportunity to undertake the relevant consultations and reach its conclusions. It is then the job of the Secretary of State to go back to the unions and the local authorities for their views and, having had their views firmly fixed in his mind, to decide what recommendations to make to the House. It would be unsatisfactory in the extreme to change that arrangemnt.
  Amendment No. 145, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Freud), concerns procedures when it has been decided not to accept the advisory committee's recommendations in full. The Government believe that, during consultation with local authorities and unions, the best course of action may be to make some provisions differing somewhat from the committee's recommendations. If so, it would be for the Secretary of State to put those recommendations to the House. Consultation would be limited in scope if it were not possible to move far forward from the committee's recommendations. I hope that the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East realises that it is important to have the two sets of consultations.
  It is not necessary to have three lots of consultation with the committee. The committee will have given its independent advice. It will then be for the Secretary of State to consider that in consultation with the local authorities. In that case, the committee will have had adequate time to consult with the parties and the Secretary of State will then go back to them to consult them on the committee's recommendations. To go back to the committee does seem to be appropiate at this stage.
  Mr. Freud: We take issue with the subjunctive. We are concerned with the steady insistence that the Secretary of State "may" and the steady feeling that teachers will have that he will not.
  Mrs. Rumbold: I think that I can honourably say that my right hon. Friend or any hon. Gentleman—
  Mr. Tony Banks: Or hon. Lady.
  Mrs. Rumbold: —or hon. Lady who holds the post of Secretary of State would act in a way that was totally appropriate to and compliant with the spirit of the interim

  603
  committee's work. I remind the committee that we are talking about a body that has a rather short life according to the Bill.
  The intention of amendment No. 153 is to make all orders subject to affirmative resolutions. The Government believe that their procedures, which are laid down in the Bill, are preferable. When an order implements recommendations of the independent advisory committee, it is to be subjected to less parliamentary control than when it departs from those recommendations. The advisory committee will be of such standing that I hope that this proposed variation in procedure will be appropriate.
  Amendment No. 156 would render pointless the consultation with local authorities and unions about the advisory committee's recommendations. Whatever that consultation produced, the Secretary of State would have to implement the committee's recommendations as delivered. This gives the committee a much more powerful role than we intend. Its recommendations should be subject to full consultation. What is finally implemented by order after consultation with the Secretary of State may be substantially different from the advisory committee's recommendation.
  We are also considering new clause 10. I remind the Committee that the Bill's purpose is to set up interim arrangements for determining teachers' pay. It is not intended that any party should have a veto over the advisory committee's recommendations. There has always been regional variation in pay. Since 1945, a London weighting has been paid. I am sure that Labour Members would be the first to admit that that has been a benefit in present circumstances. Indeed, teachers' unions press every year, as I know to my cost, for this weighting to be increased. Different rates are paid for teachers in special schools and classes. The principle is already there, and this matter may well be referred to the advisory committee. I therefore suggest that that principle should remain.
  I have endeavoured as best I can to give the flavour of what the amendments mean in the context of the clause. I hope that the Committee will accept my explanation and reject the amendments.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: The Opposition are disappointed, but not surprised. The whole thrust of the legislation is to give the Secretary of State considerable extra powers. The Under-Secretary of State said that its provisions are intended to be temporary until March 1990. The Government do not seem to be confident of that, because they have included powers to continue those provisions for one year, and to go on continuing them after that. This may well be one of those pieces of legislation that are rushed through the House and are renewed year after year. It is not a good enough excuse to say that this is a short-term measure.
  It is not satisfactory to say that the recommendations may be the subject of negative procedures. We can give many examples of the way in which the Government are able to take advantage of the House by using the negative resolution procedure, with the associated problems of considering prayers, and so on. With the affirmative procedure, if there is no matter of contention, the Government can have the measure passed at 10 o'clock on the nod with no problems. That means leaving power with Members of Parliament rather than with the Government.
  604
  Labour Members and, I think, Liberal Members, feel that the Government should consider in the other place making this provision subject to affirmative order.
  We must tackle the fact that orders cannot be amended. We had an example of this yesterday upstairs in Committee with regard to student grant regulations, the majority of which increase the grants for students. It was impossible for Opposition parties to vote against a set of orders that increased the grant for students even though we felt that the grant increase was insufficient, and the minor clauses that dealt with the provisions for mature students were particularly unfair.
  If we can find a way which will allow the House to amend those sort of orders it would be much more reasonable for Ministers to take increased powers to make such orders. However, as long as Ministers have the power to lay an order and the House has to take it or reject it, that stokes up the power far too much in favour of the Minister and takes far too much power away from the House of Commons.
  I hope that my hon. Friends will join me in the lobby to vote for our amendment, which shows our dissatisfaction with this part of the Bill.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 146, Noes 235.

  Division No. 34]

  [11.30 am

  AYES

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Eastham, Ken

  Alton, David

  Evans, John (St. Helens N)

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Fatchett, Derek

  Ashdown, Paddy

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)

  Ashton, Joe

  Fisher, Mark

  Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

  Flannery, Martin

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Barron, Kevin

  Foster, Derek

  Beckett, Mrs Margaret

  Foulkes, George

  Beith, A. J.

  Freud, Clement

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

  Garrett, W. E.

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Godman, Dr Norman

  Blair, Anthony

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Boothroyd, Miss Betty

  Gould, Bryan

  Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

  Gourlay, Harry

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Hamilton, James (M'well N)

  Caborn, Richard

  Hancock, Michael

  Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

  Hardy, Peter

  Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Cartwright, John

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Clarke, Thomas

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  Clay, Robert

  Howells, Geraint

  Clelland, David Gordon

  Hoyle, Douglas

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Hughes, Roy (Newport East)

  Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)

  Janner, Hon Greville

  Coleman, Donald

  John, Brynmor

  Conlan, Bernard

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Cook, Frank (Stockton North)

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Corbett, Robin

  Kennedy, Charles

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Craigen, J. M.

  Lambie, David

  Crowther, Stan

  Lamond, James

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Cunningham, Dr John

  Leighton, Ronald

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

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

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Dobson, Frank

  McCartney, Hugh

  Dormand, Jack

  McKay, Allen (Penistone)

  Dubs, Alfred

  McKelvey, William

  Eadie, Alex

  MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

  605

  McTaggart, Robert

  Shields, Mrs Elizabeth

  Madden, Max

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

  Martin, Michael

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

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Silkin, Rt Hon J.

  Meacher, Michael

  Skinner, Dennis

  Meadowcroft, Michael

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

  Michie, William

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

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Snape, Peter

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Soley, Clive

  Nellist, David

  Spearing, Nigel

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Stott, Roger

  O'Brien, William

  Strang, Gavin

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Straw, Jack

  Park, George

  Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)

  Parry, Robert

  Thorne, Stan (Preston)

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Wainwright, R.

  Pendry, Tom

  Wallace, James

  Penhaligon, David

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Pike, Peter

  Wareing, Robert

  Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

  Weetch, Ken

  Radice, Giles

  Welsh, Michael

  Raynsford, Nick

  Winnick, David

  Redmond, Martin

  Wrigglesworth, Ian

  Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Rowlands, Ted

  Mr. Don Dixon and

  Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

  Mr. Tony Banks.

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Dicks, Terry

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Alexander, Richard

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

  Amess, David

  Dunn, Robert

  Ancram, Michael

  Durant, Tony

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Dykes, Hugh

  Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)

  Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

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

  Eggar, Tim

  Baldry, Tony

  Evennett, David

  Batiste, Spencer

  Eyre, Sir Reginald

  Bendall, Vivian

  Fallon, Michael

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Biggs-Davison, Sir John

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Forth, Eric

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Fox, Sir Marcus

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

  Franks, Cecil

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Freeman, Roger

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Fry, Peter

  Bright, Graham

  Gale, Roger

  Brinton, Tim

  Galley, Roy

  Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  Bruinvels, Peter

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Butterfill, John

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Carlisle, John (Luton N)

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Gow, Ian

  Cash, William

  Greenway, Harry

  Chalker, Mrs Lynda

  Gregory, Conal

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

  Chope, Christopher

  Gummer, Rt Hon John S

  Churchill, W. S.

  Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

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

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Hannam, John

  Cockeram, Eric

  Hargreaves, Kenneth

  Colvin, Michael

  Harris, David

  Coombs, Simon

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Cope, John

  Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

  Cormack, Patrick

  Hawkins, Sir Paul (N'folk SW)

  Corrie, John

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Barney

  Couchman, James

  Hayward, Robert

  Critchley, Julian

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Crouch, David

  Henderson, Barry

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Hicks, Robert

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Hill, James

  606

  Hirst, Michael

  Pawsey, James

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

  Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Holt, Richard

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Price, Sir David

  Howard, Michael

  Proctor, K. Harvey

  Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

  Raffan, Keith

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Hunter, Andrew

  Rathbone, Tim

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Jackson, Robert

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Jessel, Toby

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Jones, Robert (Herts W)

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Kershaw, Sir Anthony

  Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Key, Robert

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Rowe, Andrew

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Knowles, Michael

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  Knox, David

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Scott, Nicholas

  Lang, Ian

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Latham, Michael

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Lawler, Geoffrey

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Shersby, Michael

  Lester, Jim

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Lilley, Peter

  Spencer, Derek

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Squire, Robin

  Lyell, Nicholas

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  McCrindle, Robert

  Stern, Michael

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

  MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

  Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

  Maclean, David John

  Stewart, Ian (Hertf'dshire N)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  McQuarrie, Albert

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Madel, David

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Major, John

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.

  Malins, Humfrey

  Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

  Malone, Gerald

  Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

  Marland, Paul

  Thurnham, Peter

  Marlow, Antony

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Trippier, David

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Mayhew, Sir Patrick

  van Straubenzee, Sir W.

  Mellor, David

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Merchant, Piers

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

  Miller, Hal (B'grove)

  Waller, Gary

  Mills, Iain (Meriden)

  Ward, John

  Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

  Warren, Kenneth

  Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

  Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)

  Moate, Roger

  Whitfield, John

  Morris, M. (N'hampton S)

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Moynihan, Hon C.

  Wolfson, Mark

  Neale, Gerrard

  Wood, Timothy

  Neubert, Michael

  Woodcock, Michael

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Onslow, Cranley

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Ottaway, Richard

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Page, Sir John (Harrow W)

  Mr. David Lightbown and

  Patten, Christopher (Bath)

  Mr. Michael Portillo.

  Pattie, Geoffrey

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I beg to move amendment No. 168, in page 2, leave out lines 37 and 38 and insert
  'not provide for other than a system of remuneration to be consistently applied throughout England and Wales.'.
  The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Harold Walker): With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 169, in page 2, line 37, leave out paragraph (a).
  No. 173, in page 2, line 41, leave out from 'that' to end of line 43 and insert—
  'matters may be settled by agreement between, or in a manner agreed between, teachers and their employer.'.
  and No. 174, in page 2, line 41, leave out from 'provide' to end of line 43 and insert—
  'that to the extent that matters specified in the order have not been settled by agreement between, or in a manner agreed between, teachers and their employers at the date on which the order is made, the order shall have effect with regard to those matters.'.
  and new clause 11—Starting salaries for teachers in shortage subjects—
  'No arrangement or determination made pursuant to section 3 of this Act shall preclude the headteacher of a school from appointing a member of staff in a shortage subject at a higher starting salary than that for which the appointee would otherwise qualify.'.
  Mr. Bennett: This group of amendments deals with the question of whether different rates of pay can be paid in different parts of the country or for people doing different jobs. Let me make it clear at the outset that different rates of pay already apply in different parts of the country. The most obvious example is the London allowance and there are also different scales north of the border. In addition to those two geographical differences, different rates are paid in special schools. There were in the past special rates of pay in social priority areas and in one or two other circumstances.
  Labour Members do not want to ask too many questions about the present payment of different rates, either for different areas or for teaching different groups of pupils. However, we would be alarmed if that system were to be extended. There have been a series of comments from Ministers which suggest that they are giving some consideration to that. If the Government want the legislation to proceed without many wild rumours and much concern, it would be helpful if they could make a clear statement on how far they see the extension of such variations to other parts of the country on a regional basis.
  I have one or two doubts about the wisdom of the original introduction of London allowances. The introduction of that, not only in education but in quite a few other areas, may well have contributed to an increase in house prices within the London area. Each time the allowances are put up they may allow house prices to rise, and a vicious circle is created. However, that cannot be changed in education because the London allowances are tied to allowances in all sort of other areas and because of the extremely high housing costs within London.
  However, to begin to extend that principle to different regions would create many problems. First, I am sure that the Minister is aware that there are some people on the boundaries of areas where London allowances are presently paid who feel that house prices are just as high in the area where no London allowance is being paid as some house prices within the area in which the London allowance is being paid. I am sure that the Minister is aware of that problem. Such problems always arise when one tries to designate particular areas in such a way.
  If the Government were to consider London allowances along with others for other parts in the south of England, there might be lower rates of pay in parts of Wales or
  608
  Lincolnshire, or other areas where there are allegedly low housing costs or where perhaps unemployment rates are high. That would be unfair as a matter of principle and the Government would be storing up major problems among people living close to areas in which such allowances were payable.
  11.45 am
  On Second Reading I made the point that a particular unfairness arises when a benefit is carried through into a pension. Someone who is living in an area where the higher allowance is paid—in this case that would be London—who moves to a low cost area will continue, as I understand it, to receive a pension which takes into account the average of the best years' earnings in the previous three years. Therefore, that takes into account the London allowance. Such a person would continue to receive an enhanced pension compared with someone who has always lived in such a low cost area and who cannot enjoy a capital improvement on moving from one area to another. There are already problems about allowances which are paid according to regions and I hope that the Government will not attempt to go further along that line.
  We must recognise that there are shortages of young teachers within the London area. The problem for young teachers is their basic rate of pay and that is one reason why the NUT in particular was keen to press for the long basic teacher allowance which would help people applying for a mortgage to show that their income would steadily increase to enable them to meet the repayments. In the short term, local authorities in London must look at assistance with housing and in the long term the Government must tackle the housing shortage within London so that not just teachers but many other people who are now finding it almost impossible to earn sufficient to pay a mortgage on a dwelling can obtain a house. Much more effort should be put into solving housing problems rather than in continually extending variations in pay.
  Let me deal now with subject differentials. Various supporters of the Government have suggested that one of the solutions to shortages of maths and physics teachers is to pay higher rates for such teachers. Again, I had only a brief opportunity on Second Reading to point out some of the problems in this area. The real questions are first, how to define a shortage subject, and, secondly, a teacher of that shortage subject. One can often have teachers with an academic qualification in, say, maths or physics, who are, for one reason or another, not spending a great deal of their time teaching those subjects. The most obvious example is a head or a deputy head in a school. It would be illogical to pay such people extra because of some qualification if they are not using it or are using it for only part of the day.
  Then there is the problem of those people who are filling in for a specialist who are doing their best to teach, say, physics, chemistry, design and technology, mathematics or one of the other shortage subjects. They will not have an academic or professional qualification in that area, but they are doing their best and will probably be putting in extra time to keep up with the subject. Yet, would such people be eligible for any extra payment? Once the Government start to look at such problems they will see that there are major practical difficulties.
  If the Government want to solve the shortage of teachers of maths, physics, design and technology and micro-electronics they will have to consider the education

  609
  service as a whole. In particular, they must try to attract more children to study these subjects in our schools and then go into further education. They must also consider how to retain the teachers of shortage subjects. That could be done by raising the basic rate of pay for teachers and by ensuring that teachers have a long basic teaching scale, which will provide promotional opportunities. That would encourage them to remain as subject teachers instead of being lured away by the higher pay that is offered for administrative posts in schools—for example, deputy heads and head teachers.
  Many of the problems over the teaching of science begin at primary level. We need more teachers in primary schools who are science literate, thus enabling them to include a small amount of science teaching in their normal class subjects. However, it would not be practical to pay one class teacher more for his science qualification and another teacher less. If specialist teachers are paid more money, it leads to problems. On many occasions they will be doing exactly the same work as their colleagues, yet they will be paid considerably more.
  Schools frequently organise combined geography and biology field courses. Geography might not be recognised as a shortage subject, whereas biology is recognised as a shortage subject. There are many other examples. Many schools sensibly provide a combined science course for fourth and fifth year pupils—
  Mr. Patrick Thompson: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that heads already exercise flexibility over payment for specialist subjects, in particular for shortage subjects? Surely we want to encourage head teachers to exercise more discretion and flexibility.
  Mr. Bennett: Perhaps I may be allowed to finish my point. There are many other examples. Teachers with different qualifications may be teaching children the same subjects. That has been the position in schools for many years. Various means have been found to pay teachers of shortage subjects more money.
  When I was a teacher on probation, another probationer—a maths teacher—who began at the same time as me made it clear to the head of the school that he would not remain there beyond his probationary year unless he was moved from a scale 1 to a scale 2 post. Those who teach shortage subjects are promoted more quickly. On some occasions they are promoted beyond their capability because the school wants either to attract or to retain a specialist teacher.
  My teaching experience suggested that when that was done blatantly it caused a great deal of resentment and did not produce the co-operation that is needed to encourage a good atmosphere in schools is to be encouraged so that pupils can be taught well. At one school in which I worked a teacher was recruited to teach mathematics. He was put on a fairly high scale. He insisted upon teaching only the most able pupils in the first to the fifth years, leaving his colleagues to cope with the pupils who were less willing to study. The fact that he was receiving a considerably higher rate of pay than his colleagues, who had to work so much harder in the classroom, caused considerable resentment.
  Mr. Flannery: If a physics teacher is already being paid extra for an important post, is my hon. Friend able to say whether he would also be paid more for teaching physics?
  Mr. Bennett: I cannot answer my hon. Friend's question. It depends upon the Minister's intentions. It is tempting to float the idea, and the Minister may suggest that the advisory committee could look at it, However, I suspect that it would generate a great deal of resentment and that it would cause far more problems than it solved.
  At this stage it would be better if the Secretary of State could give the idea a brief, preliminary airing and then conclude that when one introduces different rates of pay for teachers who are working side by side it is bound to create difficulties. Teachers have always been paid extra for additional responsibilities, on the basis that the extra responsibilities relate to duties outside the classroom or to duties that are in addition to their normal classroom teaching.
  Classroom teachers ought to be paid the same basic rates. I accept that there has always been a small differential, depending upon whether teachers have undergone a two, three or four-year training period and also upon whether they have obtained ordinary or good degrees. Sufficiently significant differentials, introduced to attract teachers of specialist subjects, cause a great deal of resentment. I hope that the Minister of State will say that the Government do not intend to increase the differentials.
  Mr. Madel: Bracketed with amendment No. 168 is new clause 11, to which I should like to address my remarks. It provides:
  "No arrangement or determination made pursuant to section 3 of this Act shall preclude the head teacher of a school from appointing a member of staff in a shortage subject at a higher starting salary then that for which the appointee would otherwise qualify".
  According to the Bill, a head teacher can offer various promotional opportunities, but he cannot offer what is contained in new clause 11. The object of the new clause is to maintain the best possible curriculum for schoolchildren.
  The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) made a very interesting speech about the shortage subject problems which have been with us for many years. Both sides of the Committee have grappled with the problem created by the shortage of maths and physics teachers. Evidence was given to the Cockroft committee, after which it produced its report and conclusions. The House debated the report, but the problems remain. My object in putting down new clause 11 is to try to alleviate the problem, bearing in mind that we are moving towards a new advisory committee which, on a temporary basis, will advise the Secretary of State and take evidence from interested parties as to the pay and conditions, for the time being, of teachers.
  The first problem for head teachers, which will be alleviated by new clause 11, is the tremendous variation in housing costs between the north-west and the south-east. There is a great deal of movement between those areas. If an industrial firm in the north-west wants its employees to move to the south-east, it has to dangle various salary carrots in front of them to encourage them to move to the south-east.
  The problem does not relate just to housing costs. Rates are also a problem. There are sharp differences between the rates that are paid on houses in the south-east and those that are paid on houses in other parts of the country. There can be even sharper differences between the rates that are paid on houses in one county in the south-east and the rates that are paid in another county in the south-east.
  Mr. Richard Holt: I hope that my hon. Friend is not suggesting that the rates in the north are not excessive. Cleveland has the highest rates in the country.
  Mr. Madel: I am not saying that at all. I am not making any comments on the rates in the north. I am talking about rates and the general cost of living in the south-east. I take my hon. Friend's point. I believe that Cleveland is involved in an interesting discussion about the rate support grant. I shall pull away from that rapidly because it would not be in order, although I would dearly like to make a great speech on the problems—
  12 noon
  Mr. Flannery: I am confused about what the new clause means. Can the hon. Gentleman give us an example of how a head would bring a teacher into a school at a rate higher than that due to him on the pay scale? How would the head do that?
  Mr. Madel: I shall deal with that, but I was distracted. The hon. Gentleman knows that it sometimes takes me a little while to get to my main point. I think that we have all suffered from that in the past 18 hours.
  I felt it appropriate to talk about regional variations because that is the sort of problem facing head teachers in Bedfordshire, to name but one county. If LEAs wish to fill a post, they have often difficulty attracting a person at the starting salary. The starting salary goes right through the age range. I feel that we must try to build positive inducements into the teachers' salary system so that people can move out of industry to teach shortage subjects. If people have worked in industry until they are 45 or 50, they would go into the teaching profession on the starting salary. I think that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) is "indicating assent", which is how such things are described in the Official Report.
  As I have said, that problem thwarts head teachers in their desire to appoint a member of staff to teach a specialist subject.
  The next question is, who will decide what?
  Mr. Stephen Dorrell: Does my hon. Friend agree that regional differences in salary structures need not only represent regional differences on cost, that is to say, rates, living costs and so on? They may also reflect the difficulty of recruiting people in areas that are not immediately thought of as attractive places to live in by many teachers. Regional variations could be used not only to compensate for differences in the cost of living but to encourage teachers to go to areas where local education authorities find it difficult to recruit the number and quality of teachers they need.
  Mr. Madel: I agree with my hon. Friend. We all have our own roots. We were all born somewhere, as were our wives, and often family connections and a history of having lived or gone to school in a particular area create an obstacle to people moving and they want something really attractive to persuade them to move and teach in a particular area. How will we deal with that matter in practical terms? My hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Dorrell) has hinted at that.
  The Education Act 1986 gives greater powers to the governors and head teachers, and, above all, it gives greater powers on the question of budgets in schools. We now have a system where there will be an annual meeting of parents, governors and the head teacher and accounts
  612
  will be presented to the parents, the ratepayers and all those interested. Therefore, for the first time, people will have a statutory right to see the running cost of schools in a particular education authority. That will mean that as it gets under way in about two or three years—it is early days yet—and because there is a rising parental interest in education, people will say to the head, "You are spending so much on books and equipment, and yet in your report you refer to the difficulties involved in attracting someone to teach a specialist subject. Why do you not use new clause 11 of the Teachers' Pay and Conditions Bill because it would help to attract someone at a different starting salary from what he or she would expect?"
  I believe that this new clause meets that point. It gives head teachers the opportunity to respond positively to parents at that meeting, who might say, "For the next two years shift your costs slightly in favour of the salary rather than the books and equipment." There will not be a uniform rule. It will depend entirely on what type of school it is and the history of the school and it will particularly depend on whether there is a static or rising population in the area in which the school is situated. I think that the Government will welcome the new clause because it fits neatly in to the—
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: If there is a shortage, there will be a tendency for teachers to go round suggesting to heads that they are paid extra either to stay in a school or to be attracted to a school. As long as there is a shortage, all that will happen is that those groups of teachers will be paid extra and one will merely move the shortage round from one school to another.
  Mr. Madel: I do not think that it will be like that. Not every school is in that position.
  Mr. Dorrell: Surely the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) totally misunderstands the nature of the causes of shortages in specific subjects. There are shortages in subjects such as mathmatics and physics because people who have those skills are able to command higher salaries, such as the new clause will allow the local education authorities to pay, in professions outside the education service. It is precisely in order to redistribute the shortage in favour of education or to be able to allow the education service to compete with employers outside that my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, South-West (Mr. Madel) tabled his new clause.
  Mr. Madel: That is right. On many occasions my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Dorrell) has drawn attention to that. Conservative Members are trying to bring forward practical suggestions as to how the shortage could be overcome. We all visit the schools in our constitutency and we so often hear the head teacher say that he has lost a physics teacher to a certain firm or a mathematics teacher who has been tempted by another firm. I am trying to reduce the possibility of temptation with the new clause.
  Mr. Park: I am trying to follow the logic of what the hon. Gentleman is saying. I understand the difficulty about shortages of particular teachers in particular areas. However, on considering the suggestion in the new clause, I begin to wonder how it would work in practice. The hon. Gentleman says that it may be necessary to offer financial incentives to bring in a teacher in a shortage subject for

  613
  whatever reason, and to pay that teacher an enhanced salary. However, is it not a fact that the adverse conditions, whatever they may be, also apply to the existing staff? If one brings in a new person on an enhanced salary other members of staff will feel that they are already adversely affected and they will wonder why that new person is receiving preferential treatment.
  The Chairman: Order. Please be brief.
  Mr. Park: I am sorry, Mr. Walker. I have not intervened before and I hope that you will use your discretion.
  Looking at the practical application, I think that the hon. Gentleman's new clause would bring one more element of discontent into schools.
  Mr. Madel: I think not. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that this is not an easy problem. I am treating it seriously. It is as difficult as some of the industrial relations problems that the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Park) has referred to many times when he has addressed the House.
  Mr. Patrick Thompson: Does my hon. Friend agree that the shortage of physics and maths teachers has now reached the proportions of a national crisis which is being debated by such organisations as the Royal Society and the Institute of Physics? There is a desperate need for some action. That is why I welcome new clause 11 and why I am glad that my hon. Friend is addressing himself to the problem.
  Mr. Madel: My hon. Friend is right. If a shortage subject post is not filled, that runs contrary to the Education Act 1944, as it constitutes a failure to maintain a good education system. Although we can draw attention to difficulties that will occur if new clause 11 were added to the Bill, failure to do anything merely exacerbates the problem and puts the Government and the Secretary of State for Education and Science at risk of being taken to court. A few years ago, there was, I believe, a tremendous argument in Hereford and Worcester about why music had been dropped from the curriculum in a certain school. As far as I remember, the matter ended in the courts. We do not want that; we want a sensible Bill which goes some way to meet the problem.
  The Education Act 1986 gives greater influence and power to governors. We hope that some governors will have experience of management training in industry. I look to some governors to attract people from industry to help bridge the gap. There are many people in industry who have done 20 or 25 years' hard work. The hon. Member for Coventry, North-East knows how demanding a job in industry is and how demands increase each year. I am not for one fleeting second suggesting that teaching is an easy job, but it is for many people a welcome, refreshing and challenging change. New clause 11 could attract people from industry to work just as hard but in a different environment with a different set of challenges in what is often a more rewarding job.
  The Government have indirectly added to the problems. I am not criticising, but drawing attention to the facts. Conservative Members know how popular the technical and vocational education initiative is, but it does not apply to every school. The Government never intended
  614
  that it could immediately, although an increasing number of schools are taking advantage of it. TVEI is starting to bring people in from industry. It is proving an attractive curriculum, and in schools where TVEI does not exist parents are asking whether some of the elements of TVEI can be included in the curriculum. That will continue as interest in the science curriculum increases.
  New clause 11 would help the Government over a difficulty which might not have been seen at first. I support TVEI to the hilt and it is proving extremely popular, but it has some spin-offs which were not foreseen. Giving a head teacher the powers that I suggest would help overcome some of the problems. The Government are also introducing city technology colleges, which will have a science-based curriculum. They will also want to attract people from industry. Teachers in schools might be tempted to CTCs. Only time will tell how popular and successful they will be—education is a continuing experiment—but by creating another opportunity and another system of education which emphasises science and technology we could add to the shortage of certain teachers.
  Mr. Holt: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Bill will affect what happens many years in the future? There have for some time been moves to introduce industry-based courses such as City and Guilds and the Royal Society of Arts so that there is greater integration between education and training. Teachers will want to bear that fact in mind.
  Mr. Madel: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. During the past seven years the Government have put in place a whole host of welcome new initiatives to improve the curriculum. As I have written in my notes, there may be more new initiatives and changes to the curriculum which have a bearing on the shortage of specialist teachers.
  University requirements and curriculums often change, and that has a bearing on what is taught at school. The new advisory committee will take evidence from throughout the country. We should remember that we have a widely varying pattern of comprehensive education—different education authorities have different systems. The curriculum depends on the age range in a county. A middle school that runs from nine to 13 can widen the curriculum and bring in teachers on a higher salary because different subjects are taught, but middle schools that run from eight to 12 do not have an automatic right to the additional funding that a middle school which runs from nine to 13 enjoys. That variation would be covered by new clause 11, because it speaks only of "a school".
  The advisory committee will also take evidence from the polytechnics and colleges of further education, which are tied in with the teaching profession. The number of students who attend polytechnics has rocketed since 1979. That is welcome.
  12.15 pm
  New clause 11 is yet another attempt to solve a difficult problem. We have spent many hours in many debates on it. The new clause is strengthened by the existence of the Education Act 1986 which gives greater powers to head teachers, governors and parents. I believe that, in a short time, there will be an enormous increase in parental interest in how schools are run, how money is spent, how the curriculum is taught and in the efforts that are made to ensure that the curriculum is thoroughly covered. That has always been Conservative policy—the broadest

  615
  curriculum properly carried out. New clause 11 is part of Conservative policy, and I therefore commend it to the Government.
  Mr. Pike: I shall speak briefly to amendment No. 168.
  In clause 3(4)(a), the Government might have made a genuine attempt to deal with the problem that we are debating but, because of the haste with which they are trying to force the Bill through, they have not considered the matter properly or consulted adequately on it and if clause 3(4)(a) is allowed to stand we will create a bigger problem. Amendment No. 168 is important and should be carried.
  One of the problems is attracting teachers to different areas. I know that people who live in the south, for example, believe that Lancashire is a county of long rows of blackened houses dominated by the dark satanic mills from the last century. It is not like that. Lancashire is a beautiful county and in my constituency one can see green hills from wherever one stands. However, when people look at jobs advertised in different schools in Burnley, if they have not seen that part of the country, they will have an image of it created by "Coronation Street", and which rest on images that they learned at school many years ago, when the position has changed considerably and the areas are different. I may have ideas about certain parts of the country that I have not visited that are very different from the reality.
  It could be argued that, if this part of the clause were allowed to stand as it is, it could be used to attract people to apply for jobs in those areas. However, it would be difficult to define those areas. For instance, even in the county of Lancashire, there are wide differences between the Fylde coast and the section of north-east Lancashire and other parts of the country. I can see arguments about who will designate areas that are less attractive and proving a problem in attracting teachers to fill vacancies. That is an important problem, and it could cause bigger problems, if we were to move in the direction proposed by the Bill.
  There is then the difference in the cost of living. We all recognise the problem of living in London and its immediate surroundings. The biggest difference is in housing. The cost of housing makes it difficult for people who are selling a house in the cheap area of London to be able to move into the London area to take up a job if they should so wish. Anyone moving to other parts of the country could be in an advantageous situation. The part of the country that I represent must be one of the cheapest areas for buying property. In Burnley, one can buy a semidetached house for £20,000, and would be paying a high price at that.
  Mr. Tony Banks: There are other problems associated with living in London, such as transport costs. On average, Londoners have to travel much further from home to work than do people in other cities, where people are much closer to work, assuming that they are lucky enough to have some work.
  Mr. Pike: Transport is the second problem in the London area, but that problem is created by the first problem, since so many people are forced into outlying areas because in the inner London area property is either not available or its price is too high for ordinary people.
  Mr. Corbyn: In my constituency, somebody who has come to the area to start a teaching job and wishes to buy
  616
  a one-bedroom flat would have to spend between £50,000 and £60,000, which is impossible. As a result, teachers cannot come, and working class families are forced out by the market economy, which encourages the speculators to move in, destroying communities. Is this not an important point, which is coming home to roost in the teaching profession?
  Mr. Pike: My hon. Friend is emphasising the point that I was making. The cost of housing is compounded by the cost of transport because people are forced to live outside of London. In rural areas, some people may have difficult journeys to travel to work. The deregulation of buses has aggravated the problem.
  The clause attempts to deal with the problem of the cost of living but even within regions there are wide variations. We have already heard about the rates difference in the south-east, but there are other costs that vary considerably from one region to another, even in my region of the north-west. It would be difficult to know how to determine a high cost area, except in London, where the situation is more clearly defined.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) drew on his experience as a teacher before coming to the House, and that was valuable in showing difficulties in other aspects of what this part of clause 3 would do. It would allow different rates of pay for people who specialise in subjects in which there are difficulties in recruiting teachers. He rightly spoke about the friction among teachers that would result from such a move. I have never been a teacher, but I know, as a school governor for a number of schools, the friction caused even when one genuinely used additional responsibility to give certain people a move up the scale. There tended to be some suspicions that it was not being used correctly, and one had to be careful to ensure that it was being correctly used and could be fully justified.
  This move would cause considerable difficulties. When teachers work side by side with each other, they find it difficult to accept certain of their colleagues who, in their eyes, are working no harder, with no greater responsibility and are doing the same job but, because of a shortage of teachers in that category, are getting more pay.
  Mr. Marlow: Why do teachers in public sector schools find it so difficult when teachers in private sector schools do not find it difficult, and people who work in industry and other businesses do not find it difficult?
  Mr. Pike: That point is not relevant. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to speak in the debate, he will have the opportunity to make his own case. I have no wish to deal with schools in the private sector. That would open a different avenue.
  While the intention of this part of the clause could be genuine, it would create more problems than we already have. We need to think much more about what we do because we have enough problems in education already. I am sure that even the Government do not wish to add to those problems. If this section of the Bill is allowed to stand, it will worsen the situation and affect the morale of teachers.
  12.30 pm
  Mr. Madden: On a point of order, Mr. Walker. I regret that I must raise it, but it is a genuine point of order. Could you instigate inquiries to find out whether the access of

  617
  hon. Members to the House is being impeded by large numbers of people trying to gain access to the House through St. Stephen's entrance? The Norman porch entrance to the other place has been shut and large numbers of tourists wish to visit the House. I had a group of constituents, nursery nurse students from Bradford college, and they had to wait a long time to get into the House. Such things will occur more and more often as the Government try to force through more centralist measures of this sort—
  The Chairman: Order. I shall deal with the hon. Gentleman's point of order and we shall see whether there is any need to take it further. I remind hon. Members that we are in Committee and that the matters raised by the hon. Gentleman are matters for the authorities of the House. I shall make sure that they are immediately drawn to the attention of the authorities so that we can see what action may be taken about this matter.
  Mr. Madden: Further to that point of order, Mr. Walker. Could it be suggested that for debates like this, which I am sure will happen more and more, the Norman porch entrance to the other place be left open so that people who wish to tour the House can do so without causing undue congestion? Such congestion occurred this morning, and large numbers of people who wished to listen to the proceedings in Committee were not facilitated because only one entrance to the Palace was open.
  The Chairman: I again remind hon. Members that they are in Committee. I am the Chairman of the Committee and, as such, I do not have authority to deal with these matters. As I have said, I shall make sure that the matters are drawn to the attention of the appropriate authorities and that any remedial steps which can be taken are taken.
  Mr. Robert Atkins: I listened to the point of order by the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden). I have just come in through the entrance that he spoke about and found it entirely clear. The hon. Gentleman has raised an entirely bogus point of order.
  The Chairman: Order. We must recognise that we are hon. Members and that that sort of remark does not help our proceedings.
  Mr. Flannery: A long time ago, many of us said that this Bill would cause chaos, and it is already doing so in Committee. The Bill is a minefield and clause 3 is confusion worse confounded. I should like to speak to amendments Nos. 168 and 169. Clause 3(4) says:
  "An order may as regards remuneration—

  (a) make different provisions for different cases, including different provision for different areas".

  What does that mean? How in heaven's name will it work? We tried to do things like this in the past and ended up in a mess, even though we had the noblest of intentions. For a long time, we have had to face the London allowance as best we could, but we still do not know what to do about it. The hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) said that the rates in Cleveland were higher than anywhere else. According to him, anybody working in Cleveland would be in considerable difficulty.
  Hon. Members will recall the Plowden report on primary education. That report considered the east ends and other difficult areas of the great cities and recommended an allowance to everybody who taught in
  618
  schools in such areas. We all thought that was a splendid idea. I told that to a conference of teachers and arranged such a scheme with a group of teachers in Sheffield. No sooner had we tried the scheme and found out how good it was than people from all over the city complained bitterly that their areas were far worse than some of the areas to which we had given the allowance. Some of the areas complained about were next to areas that received the allowance and we had a constant demarcation line. That scheme proved to be a nuisance, although at the time we had the noblest of intentions.
  The part of the clause which says "make different provision for different cases" prompted the tabling of amendment No. 168, to leave out lines 37 and 38 and insert
  "not provide for other than a system of remuneration to be consistently applied throughout England and Wales."
  We are to have a system under which people in Yorkshire will be able to negotiate—which this Bill hardly allows—in that area. What sort of pressures for negotiation will one area have that another area does not have? Is it possible that the councils or the unions in one area might be stronger than councils or the unions in other areas? Will negotiation be allowed if the pressure is strong enough, and will teachers in those areas get more money than they would get in another area? Matters like that persuaded us to table this sensible amendment.
  Amendment No. 169 seeks to remove subsection 3(1) (a). If accepted, it would avoid all this confusion. Can the Minister explain why there will be negotiations about different amounts of money for people in different areas?
  New clause 11 was referred to by the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South-West (Mr. Madel). I know that he spoke to it with complete integrity, because I have worked with him for a long time and know him well, but it is dangerous to try to introduce such a clause, no matter how noble the motive.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Park) spoke about a science or mathematics department that needed three maths teachers. Let us suppose that two are available and the third must be taken from industry. One is then faced with the problem, specified by my hon. Friend, that having spent years in industry and being almost at the top of his profession with a good salary, that candidate for the teaching post can hardly be expected to begin at the bottom. If he is started high up on the salary scale, what happens to the other two teachers? Have they not a right to the same salary as the third teacher? By trying to remedy the problem, real trouble will be caused in the school.
  This new clause has so many anomalies and suggestions for setting things right that it is a positive minefield. The hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) came into the Committee, intervened two or three times, and then went out. He told us about private schools and said that they could solve these problems. What nonsense! This Bill has all the hallmarks of having been drafted by people educated in private schools and in grammar and public schools. The only thing they know about the state system is how to destroy it. That is what will happen.
  I should like the Minister to explain some of the convoluted points made in the debate. I should like him to explain subsection (4) and reply to my query about teachers from industry. I know that many people enter teaching and that not all of them will come from industry,

  619
  but those are the people that I have mentioned because their employment as teachers will give rise to great dangers.
  Sir Anthony Meyer: Will the Minister assure the Committee that clause 3(1)(a) is not intended to pave the way for differential regional wage scales? I am not talking about allowances. Clearly, there must be a cost-of-living allowance in areas such as London. I am no great supporter of national wage bargaining. It is one of the worst things with which we have been landed. But if we do away with national wage bargaining, we should do it by the front door, not the back door. We should not use the Bill as a way of eroding wage bargaining. I shall be unhappy if the Bill ensures that Wales gets second-class teachers with second-class salaries. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that the Bill will not discriminate between regions, but will make provision for inner cities areas where there is a special need to attract teachers to shortage subjects?
  Mrs. Rumbold: The discussion on the first amendment suggested that Opposition Members—the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) admitted this—are not addicted to the principle of London weighting. The hon. Gentleman said that there had to be a London weighting, but he was not fond of the idea of it. Had the matter been left to him, he would not have subscribed to it. I understand what he said. I have heard the argument many times. London teachers would not be happy if it were suggested that they should not have London weighting.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I did not suggest anything of the sort. I suggested that if we could go back to the point at which the matter started, which perhaps led to the escalation of house prices in the area, we might not have wished to go along that path. Once there is London weighting in schools and in other occupations, I accept that it will be impossible to get rid of it.
  Mrs. Rumbold: I am glad to hear that the hon. Gentleman accepts that it will be difficult to get rid of it. Until about 1945 there were different salary scales for different areas within London attracting a higher rate. Territorial differences have been applied. There was a scale 1 for purely rural areas—I am talking about a different London from the London that we know today. There was a scale 2 for partly rural areas. Perhaps my constituency would have been a partly rural area then. There was a scale for partly urban areas, and scale 3 for industrial areas, or partly urban and partly industrial areas. There was scale 4 for London. In 1945, those scales differentiating between various parts of the country were abolished, but teachers in the London county council and certain areas adjoining London received the London area allowance. The allowance was comprised of two rates. The higher rate applied either when the person attained the age of 37 years or on the completion of 16 years' service in the London area, whichever was the earlier. These arrangements continued until 1965.
  Before then, the only recorded significant change was the extension of the London area to include parts of Kent, Essex, Surrey and Hertfordshire which fell within the metropolitan police district. In 1965, the two rates were abolished and replaced by one rate. In 1974, there was a special pay board on London allowances. As a result, three
  620
  rates of London allowance were established, and they are still in existence. From 1 March 1974, teachers in ILEA and certain outer London boroughs—Brent, Barking, Haringey, Ealing, Merton and Newham—received the highest rate. Outer London areas, including those adjacent to London, received a lower allowance. A new fringe allowance was established for selected parts of the home counties that never before had attracted London weighting.
  Mr. Corbyn: I am sure that the hon. Lady listened carefully to the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike). Does she accept that house prices in London are high, particularly for young teachers? It is impossible for young teachers to buy a house in virtually any borough in London. Because of the pressure on public sector housing, it is almost impossible to get public sector housing, either. They must travel a long way or we must face a serious shortage of teachers in many inner urban areas, such as the one that I represent. I should imagine that the same problem applies in the Minister's own constituency.
  12.45 pm
  Mrs. Rumbold: That is a powerful argument for the maintenance of the London weighting. It is one of the obvious reasons why we need the provision as drafted in the Bill. There is a provision for different cases. This will allow us to continue the higher rate of pay in special schools and social priority allowances for the inner cities. It is an important method of ensuring that there are teachers in schools that are in serious need of an extended number of teachers to help with their special deprivations. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree with that.
  It is unfortunate that Opposition Members are obsessed with paying everyone the same rate. It would create difficulties if we were to apply their argument to this differentiation. We seem to agree that there are special needs because of the price of houses and the price of housing generally within the south-eastern area. I do not include only London, although I accept that London housing is highly priced. People in all sorts of professions in my constituency have great difficulty in buying houses. In the south-east generally, the price of houses is different. Therefore, the London weighting is an important—though not perhaps great—incentive to teachers to remain within London.
  The hon. Members for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) and for Burnley (Mr. Pike) talked about regional differences. They were concerned about any proposition that there could be different regional pay. Their argument was that the proposed pay structure that should be accepted included sufficient rewards for classroom teachers and there was no need for any incentives for shortage teachers or shortage skills, and no need to get teachers to go into difficult posts by having different scales because it would create difficulties.
  The Government's argument is the reverse. It is important that individual head teachers can offer special rewards and that individual authorities can examine the possibility of attracting people to areas in which they can pay for shortage teachers or shortage skills that they believe are important, and also that they can get good teachers to take up difficult posts either in inner city areas or in rural areas. In rural areas, it can be just as easy, for different reasons, to have deprivation and just as easy to

  621
  find it difficult to attract people to work in rural areas. It is important that one should not rule out the possibility of there being some differentials, incentives and some special posts within the structure of the salary scales.
  The House has not yet decided the issue of regional pay. I urge Opposition Members not to make too many assumptions about regional pay but to have an open mind. Recruitment problems differ from one part of the country to another. The hon. Member for Burnley reminded us about how beautiful his home county of Lancashire is. That is quite true. I have associations with Yorkshire people who claim that Yorkshire is marginally more beautiful. The hon. Member for Hillsborough will agree that Yorkshire has marginal attractions over the county of Lancashire. These are matters about which all hon. Members have different opinions. I do not wish to extend that argument. It might divide the Committee in a different way from the customary one. There is clearly a case for asking the advisory committee to consider the possibility of some regional pay differences. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, North-West (Sir A. Meyer) that in no circumstances would we seek to make regional differences in such a way as to deprive one area to benefit another, but there may be good reasons for providing enhanced remuneration to attract people with shortage skills to a particular area.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, Southwest (Mr. Madel) referred specifically to recruiting problems and the need to give head teachers discretion to pay salaries higher than the prescribed starting salary to staff teaching shortage subjects. He made some cogent and powerful points. We recognise the need to recruit staff to teach shortage subjects such as mathematics, physics and craft and technical design. As I have said, our proposals allow for an increase in salary and an expansion in a number of incentive posts.
  This is the matter of principle that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has tried to explain to local authority employers and to individual unions. He feels very strongly about this because he believes that it is essential to have a number of incentive posts available to teachers. He believes that this will allow good quality teachers, including those with specialist skills that are in short supply, to be properly rewarded and motivated. We certainly do not rule out the idea of appointing teachers at a higher starting salary to attract people to the profession, but I think that it would be inadvisable for the House to lay that down prescriptively in the Bill. Again, I think that it would be preferable to ask the advisory committee to consider the matter. I accept, too, that the technical and vocational education initiative and the city technology colleges might also use the advisory committee.
  I hope that I have managed to cover many of the points raised in the debate and to put the Government's view. Much of what has been said today should be noted and some will certainly be taken on board by the advisory committee, but I hope that the Committee will reject the amendment.
  Mr. Freud: I shall be very brief. I have just a few points to make. I have never felt it important to occupy time simply because I wanted to make a point. I have listened to most of the debate, and I apologise to the few hon. Members whose speeches I did not hear. It is totally
  622
  unacceptable for central Government to impose different pay scales for different areas on the local education authorities. I take a fairly relaxed view of a local authority coming to an agreement with a teacher within a pay scale, but I would not wish the advisory committee to be involved in that. There is a danger that Conservative councils, which undervalue teachers, might pay them too little while certain irresponsible Left-wing councils might pay them too much. Provided that the pay scale was agreed within the top and bottom guidelines, I think that alliance Members would be content to allow local education authorities to negotiate with teachers.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: The Minister has given substance to our fears that there will be major demarcation problems between one area and another and between one subject and another. It is therefore important that we register our opposition to the proposals in the Division Lobby.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 139, Noes 220.

  Division No. 35]

  [12.54 pm

  AYES

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Freud, Clement

  Alton, David

  Garrett, W. E.

  Anderson, Donald

  Godman, Dr Norman

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Ashdown, Paddy

  Gould, Bryan

  Ashton, Joe

  Gourlay, Harry

  Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

  Hamilton, W. W. (Fife Central)

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Hancock, Michael

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Hardy, Peter

  Barron, Kevin

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Beckett, Mrs Margaret

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Beith, A J.

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

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

  Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Howells, Geraint

  Blair, Anthony

  Hoyle, Douglas

  Boothroyd, Miss Betty

  Hughes, Roy (Newport East)

  Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

  Janner, Hon Greville

  Caborn, Richard

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

  Kennedy, Charles

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)

  Lambie, David

  Clay, Robert

  Lamond, James

  Clelland, David Gordon

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)

  Leighton, Ronald

  Coleman, Donald

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Conlan, Bernard

  Livsey, Richard

  Cook, Frank (Stockton North)

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Corbett, Robin

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  McCartney, Hugh

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Craigen, J. M.

  McKelvey, William

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  McTaggart, Robert

  Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)

  Madden, Max

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

  Mallon, Seamus

  Dewar, Donald

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Dobson, Frank

  Martin, Michael

  Dormand, Jack

  Maxton, John

  Dubs, Alfred

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Eadie, Alex

  Michie, William

  Eastham, Ken

  Mikardo, Ian

  Edwards, Bob (W'h'mpt'n SE)

  Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

  Evans, John (St. Helens N)

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Fatchett, Derek

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Nellist, David

  Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Fisher, Mark

  O'Brien, William

  Flannery, Martin

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Foster, Derek

  Park, George

  Foulkes, George

  Parry, Robert

  Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

  Pavitt, Laurie

  623

  Pendry, Tom

  Stott, Roger

  Penhaligon, David

  Strang, Gavin

  Pike, Peter

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

  Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)

  Radice, Giles

  Thorne, Stan (Preston)

  Redmond, Martin

  Torney, Tom

  Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)

  Wallace, James

  Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Wareing, Robert

  Rowlands, Ted

  Weetch, Ken

  Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

  Welsh, Michael

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Williams, Rt Hon A.

  Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

  Winnick, David

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

  Wrigglesworth, Ian

  Silkin, Rt Hon J.

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Skinner, Dennis

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

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Snape, Peter

  Mr. James Hamilton and

  Soley, Clive

  Mr. Don Dixon.

  Spearing, Nigel

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Alexander, Richard

  Forman, Nigel

  Amess, David

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Ancram, Michael

  Forth, Eric

  Ashby, David

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

  Franks, Cecil

  Baldry, Tony

  Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Freeman, Roger

  Batiste, Spencer

  Fry, Peter

  Bellingham, Henry

  Gale, Roger

  Bendall, Vivian

  Galley, Roy

  Benyon, William

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Biggs-Davison, Sir John

  Greenway, Harry

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Gregory, Conal

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

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

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Hannam, John

  Bright, Graham

  Hargreaves, Kenneth

  Brinton, Tim

  Harris, David

  Bruinvels, Peter

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.

  Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Barney

  Burt, Alistair

  Hayward, Robert

  Butcher, John

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Butterfill, John

  Henderson, Barry

  Carlisle, John (Luton N)

  Hicks, Robert

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Cash, William

  Hill, James

  Chalker, Mrs Lynda

  Hind, Kenneth

  Chope, Christopher

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Churchill, W. S.

  Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

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

  Holt, Richard

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Howard, Michael

  Cockeram, Eric

  Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

  Colvin, Michael

  Hubbard-Miles, Peter

  Cope, John

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Corrie, John

  Hunter, Andrew

  Couchman, James

  Jackson, Robert

  Crouch, David

  Jessel, Toby

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Jones, Robert (Herts W)

  Dicks, Terry

  Kershaw, Sir Anthony

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

  Key, Robert

  du Cann, Rt Hon Sir Edward

  King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

  Dunn, Robert

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Durant, Tony

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

  Knowles, Michael

  Eyre, Sir Reginald

  Knox, David

  Fallon, Michael

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Farr, Sir John

  Lang, Ian

  Favell, Anthony

  Latham, Michael

  624

  Lawler, Geoffrey

  Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Lester, Jim

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)

  Rost, Peter

  Lilley, Peter

  Rowe, Andrew

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Scott, Nicholas

  MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Maclean, David John

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  McQuarrie, Albert

  Shersby, Michael

  Madel, David

  Silvester, Fred

  Major, John

  Sims, Roger

  Malins, Humfrey

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Malone, Gerald

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Marland, Paul

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Marlow, Antony

  Spencer, Derek

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Stern, Michael

  Mayhew, Sir Patrick

  Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

  Merchant, Piers

  Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Stewart, Ian (Hertf'dshire N)

  Miller, Hal (B'grove)

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

  Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

  Moate, Roger

  Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

  Morris, M. (N'hampton S)

  Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

  Moynihan, Hon C.

  Thurnham, Peter

  Neale, Gerrard

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Neubert, Michael

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Trippier, David

  Norris, Steven

  Trotter, Neville

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Ottaway, Richard

  van Straubenzee, Sir W.

  Pattie, Geoffrey

  Ward, John

  Pawsey, James

  Warren, Kenneth

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Watts, John

  Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)

  Portillo, Michael

  Wheeler, John

  Powley, John

  Whitfield, John

  Price, Sir David

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Proctor, K. Harvey

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Raffan, Keith

  Wolfson, Mark

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Wood, Timothy

  Rathbone, Tim

  Woodcock, Michael

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Mr. David Lightbown and

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Amendment proposed, No. 183, in page 3, line 9, leave out subsection (6).—[Mr. Radice.]
  Question, That the amendment be made, put and negatived.
  Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4

  FINANCIAL PROVISIONS
  Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
  Mr. Corbyn: I did not realise that we would reach clause 4 so quickly. We in the Labour party are very keen on clause IV, but not in respect of the Bill.
  The curious wording of clause 4 does not make it clear what its impact will be on rate-capped local authorities. I represent the inner-London constituency of Islington, North, which comes within the Inner London education

  625
  authority. Today, ILEA is the largest education authority in Britain, and probably in western Europe. It employs the largest number of teachers and has one of the best records on spending per pupil in the country. However, that authority has been singled out for especially vindictive treatment by the Government. Apart from money for further education, the authority has received no Government grant since 1980.
  Therefore, it is fallacious for the Secretary of State to claim that any agreement reached between the local authority employers and the teachers' unions, as has happened on this occasion, is partly his responsibility. On numerous occasions it has been abundantly clear that the Secretary of State is not prepared to fund ILEA, despite all the educational problems and the multiple deprivation of inner-city areas.
  The Government should tell us how the clause will affect any settlement that is reached between the local authority employers and the teachers' trade union representatives, or any settlement imposed on them by the Government. If the Government are to be consistent in claiming an even-handed approach towards education problems throughout Britain, they should recognise that ILEA has special educational needs. They should recognise also that is has tried hard to provide a decent standard of education, and that it has achieved a great deal, despite the smear tactics that have been used against it by the Murdoch empire, and despite the regular attacks mounted on it by Ministers.
  We need to know exactly what the Government's response will be if a settlement is now imposed in the teachers' dispute as looks likely, because the Tory hordes have returned after their night out. In fact, ILEA has been knee-capped and has been hit harder than any of the borough councils that have been rate-capped.
  I could speak at enormous length about ILEA'S problems, but I do not want to detain the House. Nevertheless, the Government should understand what they are doing to education in Inner London. I believe that ILEA has played a good and positive role in furthering innovative education in Britain, and that that has been recognised by education authorities throughout the country. Indeed, ILEA is recognised as a pioneer in the school meals service, in nursery schools and classes, in play centres and junior clubs, in youth centres, adult education, further and higher education, polytechnics, media resources, language training and many other areas. It is thus recognised as an advanced authority.
  Moreover, because of the multi-ethnic nature of London's society, it has willingly spread linguistic training throughout London. I do not call that a problem, as it is not one. It is part of the rich pattern of London life that there are so many people who speak different languages. Obviously, ILEA had to spend a lot of money on all those things. Consequently, it has been singled out for special treatment. Over the years, the Government have attempted to break up ILEA. I have been party to many campaigns to defend it in my capacity as a NUPE organiser in the past, and as someone who is concerned about education in inner London. For all those pluses the Government have singled out ILEA for special and vindictive treatment.
  Mr. Tony Banks: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government have actively pursued a hostile political campaign against ILEA? Does he recall that during the discussions on the Local Government Bill 1985, it was originally proposed that ILEA should be broken up?
  Mr. Corbyn: Yes, indeed I do. Since its inception, ILEA has been under constant threat from this Government and previous Conservative Governments. As my hon. Friend has said, they did not like the fact that London county council was a progressive education authority. Since the establishment of the GLC and ILEA, and since the local government re-organisation of 1963, Conservative Governments have been consistently opposed to ILEA. People in County hall, who have been trying to plan education for Inner London, have always had to look over their shoulders at the threat implied in breaking up ILEA into a series of too-small, unmanageable and educationally unsound organisations.
  Mr. Banks: My hon. Friend has highlighted the financial problems that are unique to ILEA. Perhaps he might care to reflect for a moment on the additional problems that ILEA will face if the London residuary body insists on kicking it out of county hall. I remind my hon. Friend that it was the ILEA boroughs which then made up London county council that paid for county hall out of London rates. Consequently, ILEA is being told that if it wants to stay in county hall, it must buy back its own property. What does my hon. Friend think of that outrageous situation?
  1.15 pm
  Mr. Corbyn: My hon. Friend's intervention has a great deal to do with the Bill. It is outrageous to suggest that ILEA should be forced to leave county hall. County hall was built and paid for by the people of London. The GLC was destroyed against the wishes of the people of London, but it will come back and it will be stronger than ever. Obviously, that building is part of London life and the London scene—
  The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman must relate his remarks to the provisions of the Bill, and should not go over old history.
  Mr. Corby: I understand that, so I shall relate my remarks to the financial problems of ILEA in respect of its occupation of county hall. The Government have—
  The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman must relate his remarks to the provisions of the Bill, and should not deal with the occupation of county hall.
  Mr. Corbyn: Perhaps I can say that ILEA has severe financial problems that are associated with the Bill and with the way in which the Government have treated it. Those problems have been exacerbated by the Government's obsession with throwing ILEA out of county hall, thus putting increased expenditure on that education authority, when it would rather spend that money on taking care of its children.
  The agreement reached in Nottingham was welcomed by ILEA as a major step forward in defining the professional requirements of teachers and in setting a long-term pay structure that is just and attractive. The authority employs 17,200 full-time equivalent teachers in inner London. Its current practice conforms with the agreement on class sizes, which provides for an overall maximum

  627
  planned class size of 33 by 1 September 1987, subject to the availability of qualified teachers and space. In ILEA, the average effective class sizes are 20·4 for primary schools and 18·2 for secondary schools. Therefore, ILEA already falls very much within the terms of that Nottingham agreement. The same is true in relation to cover, and ILEA fully accepts what has been put forward with regard to appraisal in that agreement.
  Moreover, ILEA welcomes the equal opportunities content of the agreement, and has been singled out for a particularly vindictive attack by the Government because of its progress in equal opportunities training, educational methods and employment practices. As has been said, unless the financial relationship between local and central Government is clarified and the Government accept the idea of local democracy, the Bill will create only further problems for ILEA in particular, and for other education authorities too. The clause, however, appears to make that financial relationship even more complicated and local democracy an even more remote prospect.
  I hope that the Secretary of State will reply to the debate. On 5 November the leader of ILEA, Frances Morrell, sent a letter. I should like to know what answer she is being given on this important matter. The people of London want to improve their education system. They supported the teachers in large numbers during the pay dispute. There were many petitions, demonstrations, marches and rallies. In my constituency, the local people were not blaming the teachers for that dispute, but were putting the blame where it belongs, on the Government. Ministers may find it a little hard to understand that.
  However, I hope that the Minister will at least give us some hope that the financial vindictiveness that has been shown towards ILEA will be ended, along with the rate-capping of that authority. Moreover, I hope that he will agree to introduce amending legislation that will put ILEA on the same footing as other education authorities, and that will release it from the especially vindictive position that was sorted out for it at the time of the GLC's abolition and the consequent legislation affecting ILEA.
  Mr. Tony Banks: I shall be brief. Both I and my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) wanted to use this debate to draw the attention of the Committee to the unique financial problems facing ILEA. I do not believe that the Minister is likely to give the assurances that my hon. Friend sought. Indeed, for us to believe that he would do so, we would also have to believe passionately in Father Christmas. Nevertheless, I hope that Ministers will at last show that they are aware of the problems facing ILEA.
  Unlike any other authority, in the absence of block grant, ILEA funds 100 per cent. of the pay bill for inner London teachers. Consequently, it feels doubly deprived as a result of the Bill.
  I shall not go into all the reasons for that position, but we know that the Secretary of State realises that ILEA will face enormous problems. In answer to questions on his statement he said:
  "The one local authority that could be in trouble this year is ILEA because it is not in receipt of block grants."—[Official Report, 30 October 1986; Vol. 103. c. 470–1.]
  An additional bill will be faced by all education authorities, whatever settlement is finally reached, but ILEA ratepayers will face the largest bill of all ratepayers in Britain because ILEA is the largest education authority and will receive none of the Government's additional
  628
  block grant. At present it appears that this additional grant to be paid by the Government will go to other local authorities, most of which are not education authorities, so face none of the extra costs.
  That seems on the face of it patently absurd because the additional money that Ministers will make available for an educational settlements, imposed, agreed or whatever could end up going to authorities with no educational responsibilities. Even in his wildest moments the Minister could not possibly wish to see that happen. We hope that when he replies he will tell us what special arrangements will be made for ILEA because of its unique and special problems.
  Mr. Fisher: When the Minister replies will he mention two further problems in addition to the problems on ILEA that were well laid out by my hon. Friends the Members for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) and for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks)?
  Will the Minister confirm that if the money is paid through the block grant some of the increase will inevitably go to non-education authorities? That strikes me as inevitable by the very nature of block grant. Will the Minister confirm that that is an inevitable consequence? I am sure that he will agree that that is far from satisfactory, especially when he puts such emphasis on the tightness of the financial arrangements and the desire not to waste money. I am sure that he will agree that it would be entirely unsatisfactory, if money paid under these provisions through the block grant went to non-education authorities.
  My next point is even more serious. Will the Minister make it clear how the Government will pay? Local authorities inevitably fear that the Government will reflect in the grant a particular proportion of the cost of a pay settlement which the Secretary of State may impose. That would mean that the Government could limit their contribution to a specified number of staff employed. The Minister will acknowledge that the DES figures for the correct number of staff employed are considerably lower for a variety of complicated reasons than the number of staff that are employed. A position could easily arise in which the increased money was paid through the block grant for a specified number of employed staff which was lower than the number of staff that an authority had. That is possible and likely. Then the authority — if the Minister is still with me on this crucial point — which discovered that it was being given money for a specified number of staff which was less than the number of staff that it had in place in schools would be faced with the choice of varying its contracts, redeploying or sacking staff, or diverting funds from other activities on to staff costs. I am sure that the Minister would agree that all of those things are undesirable. I hope that they are unintentional.
  I would be interested to know if I have misinterpreted those points about the block grant. An increase will inevitably go to some education authorities, and the difference between the specified number of staff and the actual number of staff employed, if the Secretary of State chooses to make that specification in his increase, is a serious problem. Local authorities should be aware of exactly what the Government intend to do.
  Mr. Freud: I am anxious about the advice that we are given in the notes on clauses where it states:

  629
  "The main expense would be payments to members of the Advisory Committee and this will be largely offset by the disbandment of the previous Burnham committees."
  The phrase "largely offset" clearly means that the pay for the Advisory committee will be more than the money which is currently spent on the Burnham committees. That has grave implications. The Minister owes it to the House to explain what remuneration he has in mind for the members and for the secretariat of the committee. The expenditure on Burnham is very considerable. I would think that the travelling costs alone, apart from the secretariat and the papers that are published, would be infinitely greater than the costs that one could envisage for a committee of five to nine men doing good work.
  Mr. Corbyn: And women.
  Mr. Freud: Women and, possibly, young people. As people do good work they are steadily underpaid. Hon. Members know how insistent we on the Opposition Benches are to give authority to people who may not necessarily have reached the age at which the Secretary of State thinks them fit to sit on Committees.
  I shall listen with interest to the Minister's reply because he owes it to the House to go into this at least in some detail.
  Mr. Dunn: The clause is about the expenses of running an advisory committee, as the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Freud) confirmed. It has nothing to do with the level of rate support grant paid under the Local Government, Planning and Land (No. 2) Act 1980. Hon. Members know that the level of rate support grant is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to determine.
  On the Burnham committee and the costs of servicing the advisory committee, no decision has yet been taken on the payment of committee members. Members of pay review bodies have their expenses paid, but do not receive remuneration. However, we shall consider whether the advisory committee members should receive remuneration.
  With regard to the costs of the Burnham committee—there are direct costs and indirect costs in the sense that some costs are not easy to quantify and put on the table—the direct cost of the Burnham meetings is about £20,000 a year. That covers a small allowance paid to the chairman together with the costs of the hire of the meeting rooms refreshments and the production of verbatim reports. But clearly the overall cost of the Burnham machinery is much greater than that figure when the costs of salaries, allowances and expenses of those attending Burnham meetings are also included.
  Schedule 1 provides that the Secretary of State—
  Mr. Freud: Is the Minister saying that these provisions will save money or cost more? It sounds as if there will be a considerable saving, which is the first good thing we have heard from the Conservative party.
  Mr. Dunn: As I have just outlined, we have yet to take a number of decisions on whether the Department of Education and Science or other Government agencies will finance the secretariat. There are costs involved, but my view in trying to equate the gain made by the elimination of Burnham with the costs of the secretariat is that the cost
  630
  will probably be a little less or the same. I shall write to the hon. Gentleman when a figure is more clearly available to us.
  The hon. Members for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) and for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks)—with great ingenuity—raised the questions of ILEA, county hall, pupil-teacher ratios, staffing, equipment, books and a whole range of ILEA activities which do not necessarily fall within the particular ambit of this debate. However, because it is the season of good will, as the hon. Member for Newham, North-West said—although I do not think that I yet resemble Father Christmas—I would like to engage the House in a debate on ILEA.
  Mr. Tony Banks: The Minister would have a job climbing up and down the chimneys, would he not?
  1.30 pm
  Mr. Dunn: Certainly, most modern houses do not have chimneys. To return to the subject, a debate on ILEA includes what it does, how it does it, what expenditure levels it follows and how it could do better.
  The hon. Member for Islington, North, said that the Government were being harsh and vindictive in their financial treatment of ILEA. Perhaps the political debate is a further dimension. I am happy to engage in debate on ILEA, what it does and how it does it at any time, while occasionally paying appropriate credit and tribute to some of the good work that it has done. I will not deny that it has done good work in recent years and that it has extremely good officers who have probably kept the authority under better control than might have been the case.
  The fact that ILEA receives no block grant under the present rate support grant system in no sense implies that it is being singled out for harsh treatment. It is treated in the same way as all other authorities. As the House will know, one significant reason why ILEA receives no block grant is that it benefits from the high rateable value of the inner London area. In addition, its expenditure policies are such that it takes them above the line for Government support.
  Opposition Members and I will always differ sharply on how and what we see the work, function and role of ILEA. I believe that expenditure and savings can be made without detriment to the education provision for young people of inner London. I know that both hon. Gentlemen who have spoken with great ingenuity will disagree with me. There can be savings on plant, privatisation of services, supernumerary teachers who are unallocated to jobs and exist on the books, and in many other areas.
  Mr. Corbyn: I am unclear whether the Minister is prepared to say now that the Government will fund the teachers' pay increase for ILEA. It is the only education authority in England and Wales that under the present arrangements would stand to receive no central Government funding whatever for the increases in teachers' pay, be they the Nottingham increases or increases which the Minister may try to impose this legislation.
  Mr. Dunn: The answer is plain. So long as ILEA continues to behave as it does, it will not receive grant. The hon. Gentleman referred to a letter which we have received from the leader of the authority, but it would be injudicious of me to reveal the reply at this stage — I

  631
  mean no disrespect to the hon. Gentleman. It will be replied to and Mrs. Morrell will be the first to receive the reply. That is only fair and courteous.
  The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) will realise that money is given for a specified number of staff because grant is related to the overall assessed need to spend on an authority. Our intention would be to direct the extra grant to local education authorities by increasing the education GRE.
  This debate is about the money to be made available to cover expenses attributable to the provisions of the Bill, if it becomes an Act. It is a standard provision and does not obviate the need for the money to be voted at the appropriate time. The main expense envisaged is payment to members of the advisory committee which will be largely off-set by the disbandment of the previous Burnham committees. Therefore, I welcome the inclusion of clause 4 in the Bill.
  Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—
  The Committee Divided: Ayes 208, Noes 133.

  Division No. 36]

  [1.34 pm

  AYES

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Fallon, Michael

  Alexander, Richard

  Farr, Sir John

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Favell, Anthony

  Amess, David

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Ancram, Michael

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Ashby, David

  Forman, Nigel

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

  Forth, Eric

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

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Baldry, Tony

  Franks, Cecil

  Batiste, Spencer

  Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Freeman, Roger

  Bendall, Vivian

  Fry, Peter

  Benyon, William

  Gale, Roger

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Galley, Roy

  Biggs-Davison, Sir John

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Greenway, Harry

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes

  Gregory, Conal

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

  Bright, Graham

  Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

  Brinton, Tim

  Hannam, John

  Bruinvels, Peter

  Hargreaves, Kenneth

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Harris, David

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Burt, Alistair

  Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

  Butcher, John

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Barney

  Carlisle, John (Luton N)

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Henderson, Barry

  Cash, William

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Chalker, Mrs Lynda

  Hicks, Robert

  Chope, Christopher

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Churchill, W. S.

  Hill, James

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Holt, Richard

  Cockeram, Eric

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Colvin, Michael

  Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

  Cope, John

  Hubbard-Miles, Peter

  Corrie, John

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Couchman, James

  Hunter, Andrew

  Crouch, David

  Jessel, Toby

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Jones, Robert (Herts W)

  Dicks, Terry

  Key, Robert

  Dorrell, Stephen

  King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Dunn, Robert

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Durant, Tony

  Knox, David

  Dykes, Hugh

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

  Lang, Ian

  Eyre, Sir Reginald

  Latham, Michael

  632

  Lawler, Geoffrey

  Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

  Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Lester, Jim

  Rost, Peter

  Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)

  Rowe, Andrew

  Lilley, Peter

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Maclean, David John

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Shersby, Michael

  McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

  Silvester, Fred

  McQuarrie, Albert

  Sims, Roger

  Madel, David

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Major, John

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Malins, Humfrey

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Malone, Gerald

  Spencer, Derek

  Marland, Paul

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Marlow, Antony

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Stern, Michael

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

  Mayhew, Sir Patrick

  Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

  Merchant, Piers

  Stewart, Ian (Hertf'dshire N)

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Miller, Hal (B'grove)

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Moate, Roger

  Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

  Morris, M. (N'hampton S)

  Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

  Moynihan, Hon C.

  Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

  Neale, Gerrard

  Thurnham, Peter

  Neubert, Michael

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Trippier, David

  Ottaway, Richard

  Trotter, Neville

  Page, Sir John (Harrow W)

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Pattie, Geoffrey

  van Straubenzee, Sir W.

  Pawsey, James

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Ward, John

  Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Watts, John

  Portillo, Michael

  Whitfield, John

  Powley, John

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Price, Sir David

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Proctor, K. Harvey

  Wolfson, Mark

  Raffan, Keith

  Wood, Timothy

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Woodcock, Michael

  Rathbone, Tim

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Mr. Francis Maude and

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Mr. David Lightbown.

  NOES

  Alton, David

  Conlan, Bernard

  Anderson, Donald

  Cook, Frank (Stockton North)

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Corbett, Robin

  Ashdown, Paddy

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Ashton, Joe

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

  Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

  Craigen, J. M.

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)

  Barron, Kevin

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

  Beith, A. J.

  Dewar, Donald

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

  Dobson, Frank

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Dormand, Jack

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Dubs, Alfred

  Blair, Anthony

  Eadie, Alex

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Eastham, Ken

  Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

  Edwards, Bob (W'h'mpt'n SE)

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Evans, John (St. Helens N)

  Caborn, Richard

  Fatchett, Derek

  Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)

  Cartwright, John

  Fisher, Mark

  Clay, Robert

  Flannery, Martin

  Clelland, David Gordon

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)

  Foster, Derek

  Coleman, Donald

  Foulkes, George

  633

  Freeson, Rt Ron Reginald

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Freud, Clement

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Garrett, W. E.

  Park, George

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Parry, Robert

  Gould, Bryan

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Hamilton, W. W. (Fife Central)

  Pendry, Tom

  Hancock, Michael

  Penhaligon, David

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Pike, Peter

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

  Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)

  Radice, Giles

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  Raynsford, Nick

  Howells, Geraint

  Redmond, Martin

  Hughes, Roy (Newport East)

  Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)

  Janner, Hon Greville

  Richardson, Ms Jo

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Lambie, David

  Rowlands, Ted

  Lamond, James

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

  Leighton, Ronald

  Shields, Mrs Elizabeth

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

  McCartney, Hugh

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

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Silkin, Rt Hon J.

  McKay, Allen (Penistone)

  Skinner, Dennis

  McKelvey, William

  Snape, Peter

  MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

  Spearing, Nigel

  McTaggart, Robert

  Stott, Roger

  Madden, Max

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  Mallon, Seamus

  Thorne, Stan (Preston)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Tinn, James

  Martin, Michael

  Wallace, James

  Maxton, John

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Wareing, Robert

  Michie, William

  Weetch, Ken

  Mikardo, Ian

  Welsh, Michael

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Williams, Rt Hon A.

  Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

  Winnick, David

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Nellist, David

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Mr Don Dixon and

  O'Brien, William

  Mr. James Hamilton.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5

  DURATION OF ACT
  Mr. Radice: I beg to move amendment No. 202, in page 3, line 30, leave out '1990' and insert '1989'.
  The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments:
  No. 203, in page 3, line 30, leave out '1990' and insert '1987'.
  No. 204, in page 3, line 30, leave out from '1990' to end of line 38.
  No. 205, in page 3, line 31, at end insert
  'or unless terminated by an order made by the Secretary of State before that date'.
  No. 207, in page 3, line 38, at end insert
  'or shall cease to have effect after such period of notice as he sees fit'.
  1.45 pm
  Mr. Radice: We have discussed the points covered by these amendments on many occasions throughout yesterday and today, or is it tomorrow and the day before yesterday—I cannot quite remember.
  I should like to ask the Minister two questions on the definition of interim. When is interim, interim? Most fair
  634
  minded people would not consider a three-year period—four years if we take account of the retrospective element—to be interim. Most people would regard that as almost permanent. The Government must face that issue. My second question is very simple. What do the Government envisage will happen after 1990? I hope that the Minister will answer those questions.
  Mr. Dunn: I was very grateful for the advance notice given by the hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice), in his usual courteous way, of the two questions that he intended to raise. There are temporary civil servants who are temporary civil servants for all their working lives. In the context of the notion of interim, we are concerned to have the notion of interim status applying until 1990. What happens thereafter is a matter for consultation and debate. We will consider proposals as they are made.
  Mr. Radice: What about speculation?
  Mr. Dunn: There is bound to be much speculation. The Opposition indulge in that all the time, especially on the date of parliamentary elections, defence and such matters. However, we intend to consult very carefully about the engine that will replace the clapped-out Burnham vehicle.
  Mr. Radice: The Minister has said that the Government will consult very carefully about the engine to replace Burnham. However, the fact is we are discussing a Bill about which there has been no consultation whatsoever.
  Mr. Fisher: Why the sudden conversion?
  Mr. Dunn: I do not feel part of the debate that is taking place on the Opposition Front Bench. However, I am determined to say that of course we shall have careful consultations. Representations will be made by individuals, institutions and political parties. No doubt by 1990, the hon. Member for Durham, North will, like me, be four years older but he will still be sitting on the Opposition Front Bench and giving me advice and I shall listen carefully. Not all the hon. Gentleman's ideas are completely bad. We shall consult and replace Burnham with a new engine.
  Mr. Tony Banks: What about a new engine driver?
  Mr. Dunn: If the new engine driver is anything like the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), he will have to take several tests before he is qualified.
  Amendment negatived.
  Mr. Fisher: I beg to move amendment No. 206, in page 3, line 33, after 'order', insert
  'a draft of which has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament,'.
  The First Deputy Chairman: With this we shall take amendment No. 209 in page 3, line 44, leave out subsection (4).
  Mr. Fisher: As my hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) said in speaking to the last group of amendments, we have discussed at length in Committee the powers of the Secretary of State, but we have not discussed at great length the proceedings to be followed when the Secretary of State makes decisions on the advice of the new advisory committee and brings them before the House. The Secretary of State tried to say that the procedures laid down in the Bill were democratic and constitutional enhancements. He tried to make the case

  635
  that the House of Commons would have greater powers of scrutiny and control. For all his ingenious arguments, smiles and charm, he did not make that case successfully. His tongue was planted firmly in both cheeks, if that is possible. That might be possible for this Secretary of State. Anything is possible in view of the way in which he has conducted the debate.
  Amendments Nos. 206 and 209 concern the form in which the measures to be introduced by the Secretary of State should be presented. In amendment No. 206, we suggest that, instead of an order being laid before the House, there should be
  "a draft…which has been laid before and approved by a resolution by each House of Parliament".
  That is a normal procedure which you, Mr. Armstrong, the Under-Secretary of State and even the Secretary of State understand, although the Bill suggests that the right hon. Gentleman's sensitivity to parliamentary procedure, or at least to the niceties of democratic political management, is sadly lacking. Even he should understand that an affirmative resolution approved by each House of Parliament is a normal and correct procedure. It would be interesting to hear the Under-Secretary of State explain to the Committee why the House of Commons should not be allowed to affirm a draft order rather than have a statutory instrument laid before it. As the Under-Secretary of State understands full well, the latter is a very different form of scrutiny and effectively puts all control in the hands of the Secretary of State.
  The burden of our case in Committee has been that the Secretary of State has been taking unto himself extraordinary, unnecessary and undesirable powers in relation to trade unions and local authorities. The right hon. Gentleman said in a different context last weekend in a widely reported speech on the curriculum that he wanted to take the curriculum to Elizabeth house or its successor in the Department. In this legislation, power will be centralised in the hands of the Secretary of State, and I hope that teachers, local authorities and parents understand that.
  By presenting orders to the House of Commons in this way the Secretary of State will further centralise power in his hands. I hope that Conservative Members who are parliamentarians, who have respect for the House of Commons and who believe that we all have a duty to our constituents to ensure that there is parliamentary scrutiny will agree that the system of affirmative resolution by each House of Parliament is an appropriate one in this case.
  Mr. Marlow: I do not know what the hon. Gentleman has done with the Bill. I do not know whether he has lost it, has turned it upside down, cannot read it or cannot understand it. The Bill refers to an order. If there is an order, there will be parliamentary scrutiny. The hon. Gentleman seems to have mislaid the Bill.
  Mr. Fisher: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has the amendments in front of him. We commend amendment No. 206 to him. It says that a draft should be
  "laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament".
  If the hon. Gentleman feels that that is an inferior and less secure way for Parliament to scrutinise the activities of the Secretary of State than that provided in the Bill, by all means let him make his own contribution. I think that he would be hard put to say that our proposal in amendment No. 206 is not a better way for Parliament to proceed. This
  636
  is not a party political point. Irrespective of which party is in power, it is better for the Government's actions to be approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament. Will the Under-Secretary of State respond to my point and explain how the procedures in the Bill are superior to those proposed in our amendment?
  Mr. Dunn: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Cental (Mr. Fisher) for the chance to comment on the amendments to clause 5. The clause provides for the advisory committee to have a limited life. The interim arrangements are due to expire on 31 March 1990, unless renewed by an order subject to negative resolution procedure. Renewal may be for a period of one year at a time.
  Amendment No. 206 converts the procedure for the extension of the legislation into an affirmative resolution. That was made quite clear. There may well be an occasion when an extension of the legislation for one year is deemed to be uncontroversial, in which case it would perhaps take up Parliament's time to debate it. If it were deemed to be controversial, as might be the case with Labour Members, no doubt it would be prayed against, so Parliament would debate it anyway. I think that I am satisfied with that provision.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: It is sad that the Government do not appreciate the difference between affirmative and negative resolution orders and their considerable implications for debate in the House of Commons. Affirmative resolution orders must be debated, although this does not have to take up more than a few seconds. There are examples of affirmative orders which involve no controversy. They are considered at 10 o'clock and are passed on the nod. This means that an hon. Member has the opportunity to debate the matter, whether as an individual member of a political party who supports the order, as a member of that party who, on that occasion, disagrees with the party's view, or as an individual. Hon. Members may want to discuss the order although not necessarily to vote against it. Affirmative orders can be debated for an hour and a half in Committee.
  The difficulty is that negative resolution orders must be prayed against, which involves lobbying through the usual channels. A Front-Bench spokesman has a good chance of getting an early debate on the order as a result of such lobbying. But a Back Bencher may not necessarily win an easy passage for the order, if the usual channels are not especially sympathetic to the idea of a debate. There are occasions when one has to make oneself particularly awkward to get such a debate.
  Mr. Peter Bruinvels: Has the hon. Gentleman ever introduced a negative order?
  Mr. Bennett: I have pursued the issue of exemptions for gipsy caravan sites. On one occasion, there was quite a cosy arrangement between the two Front Benches that one of the orders should be passed without debate. Getting a debate entailed making quite a nuisance of oneself.
  There is a further problem with a prayer. If the prayer is tabled for consideration at 10 o'clock, the debate is entitled to continue until 11.30 pm. But if there is a vote on the busines that is due to conclude at 10'clock, time for the debate on the prayer is reduced, and there may be less than an hour's debate on it. If, as often happens, the two Front Bench spokesmen speak for longer than 20 minutes

  637
  each, hon. Members do not have much time to debate the prayer. At least, with an affirmative order, we are guaranteed an hour and a half debate. There seems to be a considerable advantage in having affirmative resolution orders rather than negative orders.
  I am not overly excited by either procedure. I do not think that the guarantee of an hour and a half's debate to approve extending legislation such as this is particularly satisfactory. I argue that there should be procedural changes so that, at least, on the first occasion that such a procedure is implemented there is a guarantee of rather more than an hour and half's debate. It is not satisfactory for a Government to go for extensions to an Act of Parliament on the basis of a possible hour and a half's debate, as a result of a prayer, when there is also the possibility of less than an hour's debate on the topic.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 133, Noes 206.

  Division No. 37]

  [2 pm

  AYES

  Alton, David

  Hancock, Michael

  Anderson, Donald

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Ashdown, Paddy

  Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)

  Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Howells, Geraint

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Hoyle, Douglas

  Barron, Kevin

  Hughes, Roy (Newport East)

  Beckett, Mrs Margaret

  Janner, Hon Greville

  Beith, A. J.

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

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

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Lambie, David

  Blair, Anthony

  Lamond, James

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

  Leighton, Ronald

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Caborn, Richard

  Livsey, Richard

  Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  McCartney, Hugh

  Cartwright, John

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Clay, Robert

  McKay, Allen (Penistone)

  Clelland, David Gordon

  McKelvey, William

  Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)

  MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

  Coleman, Donald

  McTaggart, Robert

  Conlan, Bernard

  Madden, Max

  Cook, Frank (Stockton North)

  Mallon, Seamus

  Corbett, Robin

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Martin, Michael

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

  Maxton, John

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)

  Meadowcroft, Michael

  Dewar, Donald

  Michie, William

  Dobson, Frank

  Mikardo, Ian

  Dormand, Jack

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Dubs, Alfred

  Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

  Eadie, Alex

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Eastham, Ken

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Edwards, Bob (W'h'mpt'n SE)

  Nellist, David

  Evans, John (St. Helens N)

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Fatchett, Derek

  O'Brien, William

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)

  Park, George

  Fisher, Mark

  Parry, Robert

  Flannery, Martin

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Pendry, Tom

  Foster, Derek

  Penhaligon, David

  Foulkes, George

  Pike, Peter

  Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

  Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

  Freud, Clement

  Radice, Giles

  Garrett, W. E.

  Raynsford, Nick

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Redmond, Martin

  Gould, Bryan

  Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)

  Hamilton, W. W. (Fife Central)

  Richardson, Ms Jo

  638

  Rooker, J. W.

  Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)

  Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)

  Thorne, Stan (Preston)

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Tinn, James

  Rowlands, Ted

  Wallace, James

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

  Wareing, Robert

  Shields, Mrs Elizabeth

  Welsh, Michael

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Williams, Rt Hon A.

  Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

  Winnick, David

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

  Wrigglesworth, Ian

  Silkin, Rt Hon J.

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Snape, Peter

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Spearing, Nigel

  Mr. Don Dixon and

  Stott, Roger

  Mr. James Hamilton.

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Franks, Cecil

  Alexander, Richard

  Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Freeman, Roger

  Ancram, Michael

  Fry, Peter

  Ashby, David

  Gale, Roger

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Galley, Roy

  Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

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

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Baldry, Tony

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Batiste, Spencer

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Bellingham, Henry

  Grant, Sir Anthony

  Bendall, Vivian

  Greenway, Harry

  Benyon, William

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

  Biggs-Davison, Sir John

  Hannam, John

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Hargreaves, Kenneth

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Harris, David

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Henderson, Barry

  Bright, Graham

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Brinton, Tim

  Hicks, Robert

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

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Bruinvels, Peter

  Hill, James

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Hind, Kenneth

  Burt, Alistair

  Holt, Richard

  Butcher, John

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Carlisle, John (Luton N)

  Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Hubbard-Miles, Peter

  Cash, William

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Chalker, Mrs Lynda

  Hunter, Andrew

  Chope, Christopher

  Jessel, Toby

  Churchill, W. S.

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Jones, Robert (Herts W)

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Key, Robert

  Cockeram, Eric

  King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

  Colvin, Michael

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Cope, John

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Corrie, John

  Knox, David

  Couchman, James

  Lament, Rt Hon Norman

  Crouch, David

  Lang, Ian

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Latham, Michael

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Lawler, Geoffrey

  Dicks, Terry

  Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Dunn, Robert

  Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)

  Durant, Tony

  Lightbown, David

  Dykes, Hugh

  Lilley, Peter

  Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Eggar, Tim

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Eyre, Sir Reginald

  McCrindle, Robert

  Fallon, Michael

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Farr, Sir John

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Favell, Anthony

  MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Maclean, David John

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

  Forman, Nigel

  McQuarrie, Albert

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Madel, David

  Forth, Eric

  Major, John

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Malins, Humfrey

  639

  Malone, Gerald

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Marland, Paul

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Marlow, Antony

  Shersby, Michael

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Silvester, Fred

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Sims, Roger

  Mayhew, Sir Patrick

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Merchant, Piers

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

  Spencer, Derek

  Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Moate, Roger

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Morris, M. (N'hampton S)

  Stern, Michael

  Moynihan, Hon C.

  Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

  Neale, Gerrard

  Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Stewart, Ian (Hertf'dshire N)

  Onslow, Cranley

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Ottaway, Richard

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Page, Sir John (Harrow W)

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Pawsey, James

  Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

  Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

  Portillo, Michael

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Powley, John

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Price, Sir David

  Trippier, David

  Proctor, K. Harvey

  Trotter, Neville

  Raffan, Keith

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  van Straubenzee, Sir W.

  Rathbone, Tim

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Ward, John

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Watts, John

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Whitfield, John

  Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Wolfson, Mark

  Rost, Peter

  Wood, Timothy

  Rowe, Andrew

  Woodcock, Michael

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Mr. Francis Maude and

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Mr. Michael Neubert.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clauses 6 and 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 1

  PENSION ARRANGEMENTS
  'The Secretary of State shall ensure that, for the determination of pension arrangements, the agreement on pay reached under the auspices of the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service on 21st November 1986 shall be deemed to have effect from 1st January 1987.'.—[Mr. Andrew F. Bennett.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Motion made and Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 133, Noes 193.

  Division No. 38]

  [2.11 pm

  AYES

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Blair, Anthony

  Alton, David

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Anderson, Donald

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

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

  Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Caborn, Richard

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

  Barron, Kevin

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Beckett, Mrs Margaret

  Cartwright, John

  Beith, A. J.

  Clay, Robert

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

  Clelland, David Gordon

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)

  640

  Coleman, Donald

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Conlan, Bernard

  Michie, William

  Cook, Frank (Stockton North)

  Mikardo, Ian

  Corbett, Robin

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)

  Nellist, David

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

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Dewar, Donald

  O'Brien, William

  Dobson, Frank

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Dormand, Jack

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Dubs, Alfred

  Park, George

  Eadie, Alex

  Parry, Robert

  Eastham, Ken

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Edwards, Bob (W'h'mpt'n SE)

  Pendry, Tom

  Evans, John (St. Helens N)

  Pike, Peter

  Fatchett, Derek

  Powell, Rt Hon J. E.

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

  Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)

  Radice, Giles

  Fisher, Mark

  Raynsford, Nick

  Flannery, Martin

  Redmond, Martin

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)

  Foster, Derek

  Richardson, Ms Jo

  Foulkes, George

  Rooker, J. W.

  Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

  Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)

  Freud, Clement

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Garrett, W. E.

  Rowlands, Ted

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Gould, Bryan

  Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

  Hamilton, W. W. (Fife Central)

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Hancock, Michael

  Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

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

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Silkin, Rt Hon J.

  Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  Snape, Peter

  Howells, Geraint

  Spearing, Nigel

  Hoyle, Douglas

  Stott, Roger

  Hughes, Roy (Newport East)

  Strang, Gavin

  Janner, Hon Greville

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)

  Lambie, David

  Thorne, Stan (Preston)

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Tinn, James

  Leighton, Ronald

  Wallace, James

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Livsey, Richard

  Wareing, Robert

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Weetch, Ken

  McCartney, Hugh

  Welsh, Michael

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Williams, Rt Hon A.

  McKay, Allen (Penistone)

  Winnick, David

  MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

  Wrigglesworth, Ian

  McTaggart, Robert

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Madden, Max

  Mallon, Seamus

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Mr. James Hamilton and

  Martin, Michael

  Mr. Don Dixon.

  Maxton, John

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Bruinvels, Peter

  Alexander, Richard

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Burt, Alistair

  Ancram, Michael

  Butcher, John

  Ashby, David

  Carlisle, John (Luton N)

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

  Cash, William

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

  Chalker, Mrs Lynda

  Baldry, Tony

  Chope, Christopher

  Batiste, Spencer

  Churchill, W. S.

  Bellingham, Henry

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Bendall, Vivian

  Cockeram, Eric

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Colvin, Michael

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Cope, John

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Corrie, John

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Couchman, James

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Crouch, David

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Bright, Graham

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

  Brinton, Tim

  Dunn, Robert

  641

  Durant, Tony

  Merchant, Piers

  Dykes, Hugh

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

  Miller, Hal (B'grove)

  Eggar, Tim

  Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

  Eyre, Sir Reginald

  Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

  Fallon, Michael

  Moate, Roger

  Farr, Sir John

  Moynihan, Hon C.

  Favell, Anthony

  Neale, Gerrard

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Neubert, Michael

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Onslow, Cranley

  Forman, Nigel

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Forth, Eric

  Page, Sir John (Harrow W)

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Pawsey, James

  Franks, Cecil

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

  Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Fry, Peter

  Price, Sir David

  Gale, Roger

  Proctor, K. Harvey

  Galley, Roy

  Raffan, Keith

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Rathbone, Tim

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Grant, Sir Anthony

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Greenway, Harry

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Gregory, Conal

  Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Hannam, John

  Rost, Peter

  Hargreaves, Kenneth

  Rowe, Andrew

  Harris, David

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Henderson, Barry

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Hicks, Robert

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Shersby, Michael

  Hill, James

  Silvester, Fred

  Holt, Richard

  Sims, Roger

  Howard, Michael

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Hubbard-Miles, Peter

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Spencer, Derek

  Hunter, Andrew

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Jessel, Toby

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Stern, Michael

  Jones, Robert (Herts W)

  Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

  Key, Robert

  Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

  King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

  Stewart, Ian (Hertf'dshire N)

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Knox, David

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Lang, Ian

  Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

  Latham, Michael

  Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

  Lawler, Geoffrey

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Trotter, Neville

  Lester, Jim

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)

  van Straubenzee, Sir W.

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  McCrindle, Robert

  Ward, John

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Watts, John

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Whitfield, John

  MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Maclean, David John

  Winterton, Nicholas

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Wolfson, Mark

  McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

  Wood, Timothy

  McQuarrie, Albert

  Woodcock, Michael

  Major, John

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Malone, Gerald

  Marland, Paul

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Mr. David Lightbown and

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Mr. Michael Portillo.

  Mayhew, Sir Patrick

  Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 18

  SCHOOL MEALS (NO. 2)
  'The Secretary of State may empower local education authorities to negotiate an agreement on pay and conditions for all those involved in the supervision of school meals.'.—[Mr. Fatchett.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Fatchett: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  It is significant that at the end of this lengthy Committee stage, new clause 18 deals with the supervision of the school meals service. School meals provide the best illustration of the different approaches adopted by the Opposition and the Government to this service. School meals were last discussed during the Report stage proceedings earlier this year on the Education (No. 2) Bill. The Secretary of State for Education and Science will remember that on that night we succeeded in abolishing corporal punishment. He will be remembered as the Secretary of State who abolished corporal punishment. When we debated the school meals service on that occasion I moved a new clause that would have set national standards for the school meals service. The new clause was defeated, but that came as no surprise. However, it is significant that the next day Buckinghamshire county council discussed its provision of a school meals service and decided to abolish it.
  The difference between the policies adopted by the Opposition and the Government are best reflected at local level—by decisions similar to that which was taken by Buckinghamshire county council. It has resulted in the loss of jobs and in the loss of a service that was important to so many children in Buckinghamshire.
  What happened in Buckinghamshire is typical of what has happened to the school meals service since this Government were elected. Cuts have been made each year in the rate support grant and that has led to cuts in the school meals service. Rate support grant cuts lead to a reduction in the quality and the quantity of the service. They lead also to an increase in the price of school meals.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) has compared the price of school meals in various local authorities. His survey shows that Labour-controlled authorities provide the best and the cheapest school meals service. In Labour-controlled authorities the price of a school meal is 57p, whereas in Conservative-controlled authorities it is 67p. In the middle but, as usual, leaning towards Conservative-controlled authorities, alliance-controlled authorities charge 65p. If one lives in either an alliance-controlled or a Conservative-controlled authority, it is impossible to detect the difference.
  The alliance tell us that the best value for the electorate is a balanced Parliament and balanced local authorities. Those who live in Somerset suffer the ill-effects of a balanced local government in terms of school meals. The price of a school meal in Somerset is 75p, which is above the average price that is charged by Conservative-controlled authorities.
  Mr. Peter Bruinvels: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Fatchett: I am surprised that at this stage the hon. Gentleman wants to intervene, but I shall not give way to him at this point.
  The Black report came to the conclusion that the nutritional value of school meals is very important for all children. Its conclusion was reinforced earlier this year by a House of Lords Select Committee report on the school meals service. This Government and Conservative-controlled local authorities are trying to ensure that school children are provided with cheap, quick meals and junk food. They refuse to provide an adequate school meals service.
  Mr. Peter Bruinvels: What about the food?
  Mr. Fatchett: The hon. Gentleman asks, "What about the food?" Under his Government the nutritional value of school meals has declined. New clause 18 would provide local authorities with the power to negotiate an agreement on pay and conditions that would lead to the provision of a nationwide school meals service.
  The Opposition believe in negotiation and in collective bargaining. New clause 18 provides for collective bargaining and for a negotiated agreement for those involved in the supervision of school meals.
  At the moment there is substantial variation between authorities. There are variations in schemes, conditions of service and pay for individuals employed in the service. We have those differences and the head teachers' organisations have said to us, and I am sure they have said to Conservative Members, that the only way in which we can make progress is to have a nationally negotiated scheme that will give the head teachers and their organisations what they wish.
  2.30 pm
  Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Cecil Franks: On a point of order, Mr. Armstrong. Can you give some guidance? As I understand it, our deliberations having reached 2.30 pm on Thursday afternoon — [HON. MEMBERS: "Wednesday."] the business for Thursday will not take place. Not only will the business not take place, but, equally, Prime Minister's Question Time will not take place. There are hon. Members on both sides of the House who have an interest in Prime Minister's Question Time. Is it not a disgrace that the Labour party should—
  The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I remind hon. Members that we are in Committee. It is not for me to give procedural decisions about the meetings of the House. We must continue with the Bill.
  Mr. Neil Kinnock: Further to that point of order, Mr. Armstrong. There is a danger of the Committee being misled by the point of order of the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Franks). You will know, Mr. Armstrong, that there are many opportunities for the Prime Minister to make a statement to the House and that would provide a great opportunity not only for the Prime Minister to be questioned, but, a novel opportunity for this Prime Minister, for her to give some answers.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  The First Deputy Chairman: Order. We are in Committee and we should proceed on that basis.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I will not take any more points of order on procedure.
  Mr. Marlow rose—
  The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I remind the House again that we are in Committee; unless the points of order are directed to the Committee proceedings, I will not take any more.
  Mr. Fatchett: Over the past 24 hours my hon. Friends and I have fought for democratic rights in Britain. That is why we have opposed the Bill that takes negotiating rights from trade unionists and teachers. [Interruption.] If Conservative Members do not want to listen to the educational argument and want to raise bogus points of order. If at any time they had wanted to stop the deliberations of this Committee they had the opportunity to do so. They have not done so.
  This has been an important education debate. People who are involved in education have listened to this debate. They have seen the reaction of the Government to democratic rights and they will have listened to the reaction of Conservative Members who are not prepared and not interested in the issues we have been debating. Over the past 24 hours we have been involved in fundamental issues. New clause 18 is a practical and more prosaic issue but it is important for the children of our country. I ask my hon. Friends to join me in supporting new clause 18.
  Mr. Dunn rose—
  Mr. James Wallace: On a point of order, Mr. Armstrong. Since the business that was provisionally set down for Thursday, has lapsed, may we expect the Leader of the House to make a statement on business and whether—
  The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman can raise that point of order when we are no longer in Committee.
  Mr. Dunn: I approach this part of our proceedings with some anxiety because I believe that our debates over the past 24 hours—
  Mr. Bruinvels: 23.
  Mr. Dunn:—have been cheerful relevant and robust, and we have won the vote on every occasion. Needless to say, we have won the arguments [Interruption.]
  The First Deputy Chairman: Order. We have had long debates during the night and we would continue our Committee proceedings much better if sedentary interventions were more restrained from both sides of the House.
  Mr. Dunn: I always enjoy the comments of the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett). However, when he talks about trampling on people's rights and about upholding a concept of Socialist democracy, I can remember, over a period of some 20 years, a catalogue of abuse from the Labour party in the context of people's rights. It started over 20 years ago with the Burmah Oil legislation—[Interruption.] leading on, in the context of new clause 18, to the introduction of circular 10/65 which abolished our grammar schools, and the iniquitous Education Act 1976 which was supported by the other Socialist parties in the House. That took away the rights of local authorities to organise secondary provision as they

  645
  felt fit. The latest catalogue, in the context of new clause 18, is that the Labour party is committed to the abolition of the assisted places scheme and existing grammar schools. It will abolish the city technology colleges—
  The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman must come back to the supervision of school meals.
  Mr. Dunn: In all the free-standing establishments where school meals are served the Labour party would seek to abolish them and deny people's choice.
  I thought that the purpose of the debate was to discuss new clause 18. [HON. MEMBERS: "Get on with it then."] We shall do it. [Interruption.] Labour Members should listen. We have set all local authorities free from Socialism of the direct and indirect collectivist sense. I look forward to the day, in five years' time when we see Socialism reduced to the numbers currently occupied by the Social Democratic party.
  I suggest that the House rejects new clause 18.
  Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 138, Noes 211.

  Division No. 39]

  [2.38 pm

  AYES

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

  Alton, David

  Freud, Clement

  Anderson, Donald

  Garrett, W. E.

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Ashdown, Paddy

  Hamilton, W. W. (Fife Central)

  Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

  Hancock, Michael

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Barron, Kevin

  Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)

  Beckett, Mrs Margaret

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  Beith, A. J.

  Howells, Geraint

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

  Hoyle, Douglas

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Hughes, Roy (Newport East)

  Blair, Anthony

  Janner, Hon Greville

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

  John, Brynmor

  Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Caborn, Richard

  Lambie, David

  Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

  Lamond, James

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Cartwright, John

  Leighton, Ronald

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Clay, Robert

  Livsey, Richard

  Clelland, David Gordon

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Coleman, Donald

  McCartney, Hugh

  Conlan, Bernard

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Cook, Frank (Stockton North)

  McKay, Allen (Penistone)

  Corbett, Robin

  McKelvey, William

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  McTaggart, Robert

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

  Madden, Max

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

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Dewar, Donald

  Martin, Michael

  Dixon, Donald

  Maxton, John

  Dobson, Frank

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Dormand, Jack

  Meadowcroft, Michael

  Dubs, Alfred

  Michie, William

  Eadie, Alex

  Mikardo, Ian

  Eastham, Ken

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Edwards, Bob (W'h'mpt'n SE)

  Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

  Evans, John (St. Helens N)

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Fatchett, Derek

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)

  Nellist, David

  Flannery, Martin

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  O'Brien, William

  Foster, Derek

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  646

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Skinner, Dennis

  Park, George

  Snape, Peter

  Parry, Robert

  Soley, Clive

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Spearing, Nigel

  Pendry, Tom

  Stott, Roger

  Pike, Peter

  Strang, Gavin

  Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  Radice, Giles

  Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)

  Raynsford, Nick

  Thorne, Stan (Preston)

  Redmond, Martin

  Tinn, James

  Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)

  Wallace, James

  Richardson, Ms Jo

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Rooker, J. W.

  Wareing, Robert

  Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)

  Weetch, Ken

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Welsh, Michael

  Rowlands, Ted

  Williams, Rt Hon A.

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Winnick, David

  Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

  Wrigglesworth, Ian

  Shields, Mrs Elizabeth

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

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

  Mr. Mark Fisher and

  Silkin, Rt Hon J.

  Mr. Ron Davies.

  NOES

  Alexander, Richard

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Ancram, Michael

  Forth, Eric

  Ashby, David

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

  Franks, Cecil

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

  Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

  Baldry, Tony

  Freeman, Roger

  Bellingham, Henry

  Fry, Peter

  Bendall, Vivian

  Gale, Roger

  Benyon, William

  Galley, Roy

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  Biggs-Davison, Sir John

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Grant, Sir Anthony

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes

  Greenway, Harry

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Gregory, Conal

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

  Brinton, Tim

  Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

  Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

  Hannam, John

  Bruinvels, Peter

  Hargreaves, Kenneth

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Harris, David

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Harvey, Robert

  Burt, Alistair

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Butcher, John

  Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

  Butterfill, John

  Hawkins, Sir Paul (N'folk SW)

  Carlisle, John (Luton N)

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Henderson, Barry

  Cash, William

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Chalker, Mrs Lynda

  Hicks, Robert

  Chope, Christopher

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Churchill, W. S.

  Hill, James

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

  Holt, Richard

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Howard, Michael

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

  Cockeram, Eric

  Hubbard-Miles, Peter

  Colvin, Michael

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Cope, John

  Hunter, Andrew

  Corrie, John

  Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

  Couchman, James

  Jessel, Toby

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

  Jones, Robert (Herts W)

  du Cann, Rt Hon Sir Edward

  Key, Robert

  Dunn, Robert

  King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Eggar, Tim

  Knox, David

  Eyre, Sir Reginald

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Fallon, Michael

  Lang, Ian

  Farr, Sir John

  Latham, Michael

  Favell, Anthony

  Lawler, Geoffrey

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Lester, Jim

  Forman, Nigel

  Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)

  647

  Lightbown, David

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Lilley, Peter

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Rost, Peter

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Rowe, Andrew

  McCrindle, Robert

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  McQuarrie, Albert

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Madel, David

  Shersby, Michael

  Major, John

  Silvester, Fred

  Malone, Gerald

  Sims, Roger

  Marland, Paul

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Marlow, Antony

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Spencer, Derek

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Mayhew, Sir Patrick

  Squire, Robin

  Merchant, Piers

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Stern, Michael

  Miller, Hal (B'grove)

  Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

  Mills, Iain (Meriden)

  Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

  Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

  Stewart, Ian (Hertf'dshire N)

  Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Moate, Roger

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Morris, M. (N'hampton S)

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

  Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

  Moynihan, Hon C.

  Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

  Neale, Gerrard

  Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

  Neubert, Michael

  Thurnham, Peter

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Onslow, Cranley

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Trippier, David

  Ottaway, Richard

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Page, Sir John (Harrow W)

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Patten, J. (Oxf W & Abgdn)

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Pattie, Geoffrey

  Ward, John

  Pawsey, James

  Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Watts, John

  Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Wheeler, John

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Whitfield, John

  Powley, John

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Price, Sir David

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Proctor, K. Harvey

  Wolfson, Mark

  Raffan, Keith

  Wood, Timothy

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Woodcock, Michael

  Rathbone, Tim

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Mr. Tony Durant and

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Mr. Michael Portillo.

  Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

  Question accordingly negatived.

Schedule 1

  CONSTITUTION AND PROCEEDINGS OF ADVISORY COMMITTEE
  Mr. Freud: I beg to move amendment No. 217, in page 5, leave out lines 17 and 18.
  The First Deputy Chairman: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 218, in page 5, line 20, leave out sub-paragraph (1) and insert—
  '(1) The Committee shall elect one of its number to serve as chairman and one of its number to serve as deputy chairman.'.
  No. 219, in page 5, line 20, leave out The Secretary of State' and insert—
  'The members from amongst themselves'.
  No. 220, in page 5, line 22, at end insert—
  'and either the Chairman or Deputy Chairman (if applicable) shall be appointed from amongst the members representing local education authorities.'.
  No. 221, in page 5, line 28, at end, insert—
  'Ineligibility for appointment
  2A. No one who is a governor of, or recommended by, any private educational institution shall be eligible for appointment.'.
  No. 222, in page 5, line 33, at end insert—
  '(1) The Committee shall maintain a register of members' interests, listing the relevant financial interests of each member of the committee, which shall be open to public inspection.'.
  No. 223, in page 5, line 33, at end insert—
  'but the allowance in each case shall be no more than £2,000 per annum.'.
  No. 224, in page 5, line 37, leave out 'pension'.
  No. 225, in page 6, line 7, at end insert—
  'giving the reasons for his decisions.'.
  No. 226, in page 6, line 7, at end insert—
  'and shall lay an order before the House for affirmative resolution before any such payment under this paragraph shall be paid.'.
  No. 227, in page 6, line 18, leave out
  'such as the Committee may determine'
  and insert—
  'at least half of the total membership excluding the Chairman.".
  No. 228, in line 20, after 'members', insert—
  'up to a total of two vacancies.'.
  No. 229, in page 6, line 20, at end insert—
  '(3) All meetings of the Committee shall be conducted in public.'.
  Mr. Freud: We are reaching the end of the debate and this is a unique opportunity to win a Division. We have come second 15 times and it is absolutely fair now to expect victory.
  We feel that, in a bludgeoning, bullying, uncaring and dictatorial Bill, the least that can be done is to give better reasons for someone's elimination from membership of an advisory committee than that the Secretary of State feels that they are unfit.
  Perhaps the more important of our two amendments is the one that seeks to take out the statement:
  "The Secretary of State shall appoint one of the members of the Advisory Committee to be Chairman and may appoint one of them Deputy Chairman."
  Instead, we would insert a democratic electoral system. I suppose that the Secretary of State, bearing in mind that members of the advisory committee shall be appointed and shall not be paid, is frightened that they may not be of the right quality to elect a chairman or deputy chairman. We would resent that. Here is an ideal opportunity of practising democracy and introducing a small amount of democracy into what is basically a dictatorial Bill.
  We suggest that the five to nine members be allowed to elect their own chairman by a single transferable vote, an admirable system. The members of the advisory committee will have their names put down on a piece of paper and will write from one to five or from one to nine on them. This will go on until someone reaches an overall majority. It may be possible that the people whom the Secretary of State will nominate for membership of the advisory committee will all vote for themselves as their first preference. In that event, there is a draw, one of them is eliminated and that person's vote goes to the second name on the list. This goes on being done until an overall majority is reached.
  Mr. Rowe: Is it part of the scheme that when the result is finally known, the ballot papers should be burnt and a

  649
  puff of smoke of the appropriate colour be emitted? If so, could this be regarded as a proper sequel to the Burnham committee?
  Mr. Freud: The confidentiality of our electoral system does not need revision. What needs revision is our electoral system. If we could get smoke of an alliance colour, the idea would not be unattractive. At the moment, the available colours do not reflect either orange or black, so we have a problem.
  This is a small thing to ask of the Secretary of State. It is the insertion of a small amount of democracy, simply so that the five to nine members of the advisory committee can at least be seen to have some authority and elect, among themselves, the chairman and the deputy chairman. We would not advise that the person who comes second should become deputy chairman, as it would be hard to find out who comes second unless one goes on using the alternative vote. There should be a separate election for the vice-chairman.
  Mr. Dunn: The amendments proposed by the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Freud) concern the make-up and proceeding of the advisory committee. The provisions in the schedule are all common form, and I can see no reason to disturb them. Throughout today, the Opposition have tried to make something of the provision that the Secretary of State may remove a member from office if that member is, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, otherwise unable or unfit to discharge the functions of a member. They claim that there is something sinister in that. In fact, it is entirely common form. It appears in the Employment and Training Act 1973 in relation to the Manpower Services Commission. It appears in the Health and Safety at Work Etc. Act passed by a Labour Government in 1974 in relation to the Health and Safety Commission. The Secretary of State would have to have evidence on which he could properly place an opinion that the member was unable or unfit to perform his duties. If he made an unreasonable decision, it could be challenged by way of judicial review.
  The hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East outlined a selection system for the election of chairman. To my dying day, I shall be opposed to a system of proportional representation.
  Mr. Fisher: That is not on the amendment paper.
  Mr. Dunn: I am grateful for that point.
  The hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East wants the committee to select its own chairman. The Committee understands that the members of the committee will be capable people, but the chairman must be prepared to devote more of his or her time and effort to the work of the committee. It must be right that the Secretary of State, bearing that in mind, should select the chairman of the committee. Therefore, I ask the Committee to reject the amendment.
  Question put:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 142, Noes 222.

  Division No. 40]

  [2.57 pm

  AYES

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Ashton, Joe

  Anderson, Donald

  Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Ashdown, Paddy

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  650

  Barron, Kevin

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Beckett, Mrs Margaret

  McCartney, Hugh

  Beith, A. J.

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

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

  McKay, Allen (Penistone)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Maclennan, Robert

  Blair, Anthony

  McTaggart, Robert

  Boyes, Roland

  Madden, Max

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

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

  Martin, Michael

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Maxton, John

  Caborn, Richard

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

  Meadowcroft, Michael

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Michie, William

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Mikardo, Ian

  Clay, Robert

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Clelland, David Gordon

  Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Coleman, Donald

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Conlan, Bernard

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Cook, Frank (Stockton North)

  O'Brien, William

  Corbett, Robin

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Crowther, Stan

  Park, George

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Parry, Robert

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)

  Penhaligon, David

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

  Pike, Peter

  Dixon, Donald

  Powell, Rt Hon J. E.

  Dormand, Jack

  Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

  Dubs, Alfred

  Radice, Giles

  Eadie, Alex

  Raynsford, Nick

  Eastham, Ken

  Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)

  Edwards, Bob (W'h'mpt'n SE)

  Richardson, Ms Jo

  Evans, John (St. Helens N)

  Rooker, J. W.

  Fatchett, Derek

  Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Fisher, Mark

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Flannery, Martin

  Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Shields, Mrs Elizabeth

  Foster, Derek

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

  Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

  Freud, Clement

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

  Garrett, W. E.

  Silkin, Rt Hon J.

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Skinner, Dennis

  Gould, Bryan

  Soley, Clive

  Hamilton, James (M'well N)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Hamilton, W. W. (Fife Central)

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Hancock, Michael

  Stott, Roger

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Strang, Gavin

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Straw, Jack

  Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)

  Howells, Geraint

  Thorne, Stan (Preston)

  Hoyle, Douglas

  Tinn, James

  Hughes, Roy (Newport East)

  Wallace, James

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Janner, Hon Greville

  Wareing, Robert

  John, Brynmor

  Weetch, Ken

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Williams, Rt Hon A.

  Lambie, David

  Winnick, David

  Lamond, James

  Wrigglesworth, Ian

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Leighton, Ronald

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Livsey, Richard

  Mr. David Alton and

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Mr. John Carthwright.

  NOES

  Alexander, Richard

  Benyon, William

  Ancram, Michael

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Ashby, David

  Biggs-Davison, Sir John

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

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

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Baldry, Tony

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes

  Bellingham, Henry

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Bendall, Vivian

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  651

  Brinton, Tim

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

  Jones, Robert (Herts W)

  Bruinvels, Peter

  Kershaw, Sir Anthony

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Key, Robert

  Buck, Sir Antony

  King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

  Burt, Alistair

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Butcher, John

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Butterfill, John

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Carlisle, John (Luton N)

  Knox, David

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Cash, William

  Lang, Ian

  Chalker, Mrs Lynda

  Latham, Michael

  Chope, Christopher

  Lawler, Geoffrey

  Churchill, W. S.

  Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

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

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Lester, Jim

  Colvin, Michael

  Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)

  Cope, John

  Lilley, Peter

  Cormack, Patrick

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Couchman, James

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Lyell, Nicholas

  Dorrell, Stephen

  McCrindle, Robert

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

  Macfarlane, Neil

  du Cann, Rt Hon Sir Edward

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Dunn, Robert

  MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

  Durant, Tony

  Maclean, David John

  Dykes, Hugh

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

  McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

  Eggar, Tim

  McQuarrie, Albert

  Eyre, Sir Reginald

  Madel, David

  Fallon, Michael

  Major, John

  Farr, Sir John

  Malone, Gerald

  Favell, Anthony

  Marland, Paul

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Marlow, Antony

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Fletcher, Alexander

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Forman, Nigel

  Mayhew, Sir Patrick

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Merchant, Piers

  Forth, Eric

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Miller, Hal (B'grove)

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Mills, Iain (Meriden)

  Franks, Cecil

  Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

  Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

  Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

  Freeman, Roger

  Moate, Roger

  Fry, Peter

  Morris, M. (N'hampton S)

  Gale, Roger

  Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

  Galley, Roy

  Moynihan, Hon C.

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Neale, Gerrard

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Onslow, Cranley

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Grant, Sir Anthony

  Ottaway, Richard

  Greenway, Harry

  Page, Sir John (Harrow W)

  Gregory, Conal

  Patten, Christopher (Bath)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

  Patten, J. (Oxf W & Abgdn)

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Pattie, Geoffrey

  Hannam, John

  Pawsey, James

  Hargreaves, Kenneth

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Harris, David

  Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Harvey, Robert

  Portillo, Michael

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

  Powley, John

  Hawkins, Sir Paul (N'folk SW)

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Barney

  Price, Sir David

  Hayward, Robert

  Proctor, K. Harvey

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Raffan, Keith

  Henderson, Barry

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Hicks, Robert

  Rathbone, Tim

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Hill, James

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Holt, Richard

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Howard, Michael

  Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

  Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Hubbard-Miles, Peter

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Rost, Peter

  Hunter, Andrew

  Rowe, Andrew

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  Jessel, Toby

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  652

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Thurnham, Peter

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Shersby, Michael

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Silvester, Fred

  Trippier, David

  Sims, Roger

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Waldegrave, Hon William

  Spencer, Derek

  Ward, John

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

  Squire, Robin

  Watts, John

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)

  Stern, Michael

  Wheeler, John

  Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

  Whitfield, John

  Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Stewart, Ian (Hertf'dshire N)

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Wolfson, Mark

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Wood, Timothy

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Woodcock, Michael

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

  Mr. Michael Neubert and

  Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

  Mr. David Lightbown.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Schedule agreed to.
  Schedule 2 agreed to.
  Bill reported, without amendment.
  3.10 pm
  Mr. Kenneth Baker: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  This has been a long, thorough and exhaustive debate, but it has not been exhausting for me, for my Minister of State or for my Under-Secretary. We are ready for many hours of debate. I thank my hon. Friends for the help that they have given me during the course of the debate. The only closure during the past 24 hours was moved by the Liberal party. Until the point when members of the Liberal party moved that closure, no member of the Liberal or alliance parties had had anything to contribute. I was keen to ensure that, on such an important matter as the Bill, we should use neither the closure not the guillotine, although I was sorely tempted to do so as the speech made by the Hon. Member for Bolsover, (Mr. Skinner) reached the end of its second hour.
  So great was the interest of Her Majesty's official Opposition that, for some Divisions, only 26 or 27 Members had managed to stay up. During Divisions, Conservative Members overwhelmed Labour Members by five to one. At two o-clock this morning, Conservative Members were joined on the Government Front Bench by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. We saw neither sight nor sound of the Leader of the Opposition. I thank all my hon. Friends for sharing my determination to see that the Bill goes on to the statute book.
  The Bill is important because it marks the end of the discredited Burnham negotiating machinery. It marks the beginning of the period in which pay and conditions will be settled together. It re-establishes a proper role for the Secretary of State in determining schoolteachers' pay. Above all, it provides a way of bringing to an end the negotiating brawl that has disfigured the education system for the past two years and in which children have been the victim.
  Under the 1944 Act, the Secretary of State is the guardian of educational standards. He is the upholder of the quality of education service. Right at the heart of the quality of that service stands the teacher. That is why, in

  653
  discharging my responsibility, I have provided for an extra £600 million expenditure this year and next year for more pay for teachers. This will provide an average increase of 16·4 per cent. and will mean, when added to what has already been paid this year, an average increase of 25 per cent. over 18 months. This is a massive and generous increase, unique in the public sector.
  Under my proposals, a good honours graduate—we need to attract such graduates to teaching—will start at £8,500 a year. If he or she becomes head of a big school, the salary will be over £30,000. Attracting good graduates into the profession is not enough. We need to keep them there. To motivate them, we need a structure with incentives, differentials and good promotion prospects—a structure that recognises and reward the good classroom teacher and those taking on additional responsibilities, and also provides flexibility for filling difficult posts, including those in shortage subjects.
  I am pleased that there has been a measure of agreement on certain aspects of the Bill. I wish to stress the measure of agreement between all hon. Members. The agreement is that Burnham should go, that pay and conditions should be settled together, that a clear definition of teachers' jobs should be adopted, and that the Secretary of State should have a proper role in pay determination. However, we disagree fundamentally with Oppostion Members on the cost structure and pay machinery. They want to keep the same type of negotiating machinery that has failed to produce a settlement for two years—that machinery got the agreement of five unions in Coventry last July, the agreement of four in Nottingham and, now, the agreement of two. We propose an interim measure, an advisory committee that will receive evidence, including that from unions and local authorities, separately or jointly. I shall then consult the unions and the local authorities about the recommendations of the committee.
  The Bill also will enable me to move to resolve the current impasse. I shall meet two of the unions and the local authorities over the next few days. My door will remain open. One union has already made some proposals about how it might move on structure. I shall need to explore those proposals and discuss them.
  In the past 24 hours, I have heard a great deal about trade union negotiating rights and trade union rights. These rights will be respected under the new arrangements. The unions will not be shut out from involvement in the determination of pay. They will have an important part to play. The unreality of the present position is that I have been virtually excluded, even though I am expected to provide a great deal of the money.
  Although we have heard so much about trade union rights, we have not heard much about children's rights or about parents' rights to access to an uninterrupted and high quality education. To achieve a balance between all these rights and to resolve the current debacle, we should ensure the passage of the Bill.
  3.15 pm
  Mr. Radice: I thank the staff and officers of the House who, despite the haste with which the Bill has been railroaded through the House, have provided hon. Members with the usual efficient service. I also pay tribute to my team and all of my parliamentary colleagues for
  654
  their sustained efforts that have ensured that this highly controversial Bill received adequate parliamentary scrutiny. However, as it leaves the House, the Bill still remains dangerously authoritarian. It removes collective bargaining rights, substitutes a system of ministerial diktat and will make the teachers' dispute harder not easier, to solve.
  The Bill, in its seven short clauses, seeks to overturn all existing negotiating procedures to abolish teachers' direct participation in the determination of their pay and conditions of service and to abolish the rights of local authorities to have a say in determining the pay and conditions of those whom they employ. In place of collective bargaining, the Secretary of State proposes to establish a committee to advise him on teachers' pay and their conditions of service. That committee can only be described as the Secretary of State's poodle. He will decide its membership. He will have the power to sack its members at will. He can decide the terms of reference for the committee's work. The Secretary of State is leaving nothing to chance. In the event of his rigged committee reaching conclusions that are not to his liking, he has given himself the power to ignore its recommendations and to impose his own settlement.
  The Secretary of State cannot claim that the proposals are an exceptional one-off measure covering only the immediate pay deal. The Secretary of State is to take these sweeping powers for at least the next three years. Indeed, if we count the retrospective powers, he will hold those powers for four years. If the Bill comes into force, 400,000 teachers will have fewer bargaining rights than any other group of public servants. I remind the House that civil servants have the Whitley council machinery. Nurses, doctors and the armed forces have independent review bodies that publish their own reports. Teachers will not even have that.
  The Secretary of State has failed to shake our view that the Bill rides roughshod over International Labour Organisation conventions as well as the European social contract. Despite all our efforts, it remains a tyrannical piece of legislation. However, the Opposition have reminded the Government, who are growing arrogant with power, of the need to maintain parliamentary rights and scrutiny. We have drawn public attention to a Bill that gives exceptional and unacceptable powers to the Secretary of State. The Minister has deliberately tried to mislead the House and the media about the nature of the Bill. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not talk of an hon. Member "deliberately misleading" the House.
  Mr. Radice: The Minister has misled the House about the nature of the Bill. If the Opposition had not discussed the Bill thoroughly, its true character would have remained hidden.
  We have sent a signal to another place that the Bill needs careful scrutiny. It infringes basic rights. It gives unacceptable power to the Secretary of State. It makes a long-term settlement harder to achieve. It is a bad Bill and it does not deserve a place on the statute book.
  3.19 pm
  Mr. Freud: The Secretary of State began his speech with a cheap jibe at the performance of the Liberals. I begin by complimenting all Front-Bench Members on their stamina

  655
  and courtesy throughout the night. The Secretary of State and his Ministers were here as long as most of us, as were the Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen, and all deserve recognition. As for the Secretary of State's jibe about the Liberals, I should point out that there were 20 groups of amendments on the Order Paper. We signalled on Second Reading that we would not seek to amend clause 1, so we did not enter the debate until the third set of amendments. The fact that 15 hours were spent on the first two is no good reason to blame us for not contributing.
  Nevertheless, this is still a rotten little Bill. It abolishes negotiating rights. I remind the Secretary of State again that the more one can negotiate the greater is the safety valve and the less is the danger of industrial dispute. Genuinely, and for the sake of our children, I must say that I do not believe that the Bill will bring peace to our classrooms.
  We have always favoured the repeal of the Remuneration of Teachers Act 1965. We have agreed that the Burnham machinery has clearly become inadequate and we have never denied that the Secretary of State has an undisputed right to legislate. We are saying that he should not do it in this way in a temporary measure for this long. We believe that this is a dangerously authoritarian Bill. In this dispute the Secretary of State surely has a duty to find common ground to aid a true settlement rather than alienating and demoralising the entire teaching profession as I believe he has done. Pushing a Bill of this kind through Parliament with such haste is not the best way to cultivate a good working relationship with the teachers.
  In the context of employment legislation, I believe that the Bill is unprecedented. It means that 400,000 teachers will lose the rights that they have had in law since 1919. I am still waiting for a reply from the Minister of State as to which other group of workers — police, firemen, nurses, look where she will—is similarly disadvantaged in negotiations. The Bill directly contravenes two International Labour Organisation conventions, both signed and accepted by the Government. We need a new initiative from the Secretary of State to help solve the dispute, not the strong-arm tactics that we have seen. One wonders about the implications for other public sector employees. Is the Bill the thin end of the wedge? Who will be next? Will it be the Civil Service? Will the First Division Association be denied its negotiating rights?
  Finally, the award for the worst point made in twenty-three and a half hours of debate must go to the Minister of State when she said that although a majority of the teachers had voted for the ACAS agreement she would not admit it because the majority of the unions had voted against it. If she genuinely believes that that view has any credibility, she may care to consider that the Government represent just one party while the Opposition represent the Labour party, the Liberal party, the Social Democratic party, the Scottish Nationalists, the Welsh Nationalists and the Ulster Unionists. On the hon. Lady's argument, we outnumber the Government party by six to one. What a rotten argument. If for no other reason than that, I hope that the House will deny the Bill a Third Reading.
  Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 235, Noes.152.

  Division No. 41]

  [3.24 pm

  AYES

  Alexander, Richard

  Arnold, Tom

  Ancram, Michael

  Ashby, David

  656

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Harvey, Robert

  Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

  Haselhurst, Alan

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

  Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

  Baldry, Tony

  Hawkins, Sir Paul (N'folk SW)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Barney

  Bendall, Vivian

  Hayward, Robert

  Benyon, William

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Henderson, Barry

  Biggs-Davison, Sir John

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Hind, Kenneth

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Hirst, Michael

  Bottomley, Peter

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Holt, Richard

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes

  Howard, Michael

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Hubbard-Miles, Peter

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Brinton, Tim

  Hunter, Andrew

  Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Bruinvels, Peter

  Jackson, Robert

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Jessel, Toby

  Burt, Alistair

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Butcher, John

  Jones, Robert (Herts W)

  Butterfill, John

  Kershaw, Sir Anthony

  Carlisle, John (Luton N)

  Key, Robert

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

  Cash, William

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Chalker, Mrs Lynda

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Chope, Christopher

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Churchill, W. S.

  Knox, David

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

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Lang, Ian

  Colvin, Michael

  Latham, Michael

  Cope, John

  Lawler, Geoffrey

  Corrie, John

  Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

  Couchman, James

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Crouch, David

  Lester, Jim

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Lilley, Peter

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  du Cann, Rt Hon Sir Edward

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Dunn, Robert

  Lyell, Nicholas

  Durant, Tony

  McCrindle, Robert

  Dykes, Hugh

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

  MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

  Eggar, Tim

  Maclean, David John

  Eyre, Sir Reginald

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Fallon, Michael

  McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

  Farr, Sir John

  McQuarrie, Albert

  Favell, Anthony

  Madel, David

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Major, John

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  Malone, Gerald

  Fletcher, Alexander

  Marland, Paul

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Marlow, Antony

  Forman, Nigel

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Forth, Eric

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Mayhew, Sir Patrick

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Merchant, Piers

  Franks, Cecil

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

  Miller, Hal (B'grove)

  Freeman, Roger

  Mills, Iain (Meriden)

  Fry, Peter

  Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

  Gale, Roger

  Moate, Roger

  Galley, Roy

  Morris, M. (N'hampton S)

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Moynihan, Hon C.

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Murphy, Christopher

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Neale, Gerrard

  Grant, Sir Anthony

  Neubert, Michael

  Greenway, Harry

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

  Norris, Steven

  Gummer, Rt Hon John S

  Onslow, Cranley

  Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Page, Sir John (Harrow W)

  Hannam, John

  Patten, Christopher (Bath)

  Hargreaves, Kenneth

  Patten, J. (Oxf W & Abgdn)

  Harris, David

  Pattie, Geoffrey

  657

  Pawsey, James

  Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Stewart, Ian (Hertf'dshire N)

  Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Powley, John

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Price, Sir David

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Proctor, K. Harvey

  Terlezki, Stefan

  Raffan, Keith

  Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Thurnham, Peter

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Trippier, David

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Trotter, Neville

  Rost, Peter

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Rowe, Andrew

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  Waldegrave, Hon William

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Waller, Gary

  Scott, Nicholas

  Ward, John

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Warren, Kenneth

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Watts, John

  Shersby, Michael

  Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)

  Silvester, Fred

  Wheeler, John

  Sims, Roger

  Whitfield, John

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Wolfson, Mark

  Spencer, Derek

  Wood, Timothy

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Woodcock, Michael

  Squire, Robin

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Stern, Michael

  Mr. David Lightbown and

  Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

  Mr Michael Portillo.

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  NOES

  Alton, David

  Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

  Anderson, Donald

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Cartwright, John

  Ashdown, Paddy

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Ashton, Joe

  Clarke, Thomas

  Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

  Clay, Robert

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Clelland, David Gordon

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Barron, Kevin

  Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)

  Beckett, Mrs Margaret

  Coleman, Donald

  Beith, A. J.

  Conlan, Bernard

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

  Cook, Frank (Stockton North)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Corbett, Robin

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Blair, Anthony

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

  Boyes, Roland

  Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)

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

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

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

  Dewar, Donald

  Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

  Dixon, Donald

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Dobson, Frank

  Caborn, Richard

  Dormand, Jack

  658

  Dubs, Alfred

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Eadie, Alex

  Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

  Eastham, Ken

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Edwards, Bob (W'h'mpt'n SE)

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Evans, John (St. Helens N)

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Nellist, David

  Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Flannery, Martin

  O'Brien, William

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Foster, Derek

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Foulkes, George

  Park, George

  Fraser, J. (Norwood)

  Parry, Robert

  Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Freud, Clement

  Pendry, Tom

  Garrett, W. E.

  Penhaligon, David

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Pike, Peter

  Hamilton, James (M'well N)

  Powell, Rt Hon J. E.

  Hamilton, W. W. (Fife Central)

  Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

  Hancock, Michael

  Radice, Giles

  Hardy, Peter

  Raynsford, Nick

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Richardson, Ms Jo

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Rooker, J. W.

  Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)

  Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Howells, Geraint

  Rowlands, Ted

  Hoyle, Douglas

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Hughes, Roy (Newport East)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Shields, Mrs Elizabeth

  Janner, Hon Greville

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  John, Brynmor

  Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

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

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

  Silkin, Rt Hon J.

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Skinner, Dennis

  Lamond, James

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

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Snape, Peter

  Leighton, Ronald

  Soley, Clive

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Livsey, Richard

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Stott, Roger

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Strang, Gavin

  McCartney, Hugh

  Straw, Jack

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  McKay, Allen (Penistone)

  Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)

  MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

  Thorne, Stan (Preston)

  Maclennan, Robert

  Tinn, James

  McTaggart, Robert

  Wallace, James

  Madden, Max

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Mallon, Seamus

  Wareing, Robert

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Weetch, Ken

  Martin, Michael

  Welsh, Michael

  Maxton, John

  Winnick, David

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Meacher, Michael

  Meadowcroft, Michael

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Michie, William

  Mr. Mark Fisher and

  Mikardo, Ian

  Mr. Derek Fatchett.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill read the Third time, and passed.

  Business of the House
  3.36 pm
  The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the business for next week.
  MONDAY 15 DECEMBER—Until seven o'clock, private Members' motions.
  Motion for the Christmas Adjournment. It will be proposed that the House should rise for the Christmas Adjournment on Friday 19 December until Monday 12 January.
  Proceedings on the Consolidated Fund Bill.
  TUESDAY 16 DECEMBER—Second Reading of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill.
  Motion on the draft Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 (Continuance) (No. 3) Order.
  Motions on supplementary benefit regulations relating to mortgage interest. Details will be given in the Official Report.
  There will be a debate on EC documents relating to fisheries arrangements for 1987. Details will be given in the Official Report.
  WEDNESDAY 17 DECEMBER—There will be a debate on a motion to approve the Chancellor of the Exchequer's autumn statement.
  Motion relating to the Water Authorities (Return on Assets) Order.
  THURSDAY 18 DECEMBER—Motions on supplementary and social security benefit orders and regulations. Details will be given in the Official Report.
  FRIDAY 19 DECEMBER—Adjournment debates.
  Tuesday 16 December
  Relevant European documents:

  (a) 10549/86

  Fish guide prices

  (b) Unnumbered

  Fisheries total allowable catches and quotas 1987

  (c) Unnumbered

  Reciprocal fisheries agreement with Norway 1987

  Relevant reports of European Legislation Committee

  (a) HC 22-i (1986–87) para 2

  (b) HC 22-iv (1986–87) para 5

  (c) HC 22-iv (1986–87) para 6

  [Motions on supplementary and social security benefit orders and regulations to be debated on Thursday 18 December
  The draft Supplementary Benefit (Single Payments) Amendment Regulations 1986 (S.I. 1986 No. 1961)
  The draft Social Security Benefits Up-rating (No. 2) Order 1986
  The draft Supplementary Benefit Up-rating (No. 2) Order 1986
  The draft Family Income Supplements (Computation) (No. 2) Regulations 1986
  The draft Statutory Sick Pay (Rates of Payment) Regulations 1986
  The draft Social Security Benefits (Contributions, Re-rating (No. 2) Order 1986
  The draft Social Security Benefits (Treasury Supplement to and Allocation of Contributions (Re-rating) Order 1986
  The Housing Benefits (Amendment) (No. 5) Regulations 1986 (S.I., 1986, No. 2183)
  Motions on Supplementary Benefit Payments (Mortgage) Interest Regulations to be debated on Tuesday 16 December
  The draft Supplementary Benefit (Housing Requirements and Resources) Amendment Regulations 1986
  The Supplementary Benefit (Claims and Payments) Amendment (No. 2) Regulations 1986 (S.I., 1986, No. 2154)]
  Mr. Neil Kinnock: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his statement.
  The motion on Tuesday night relating to benefit regulations on mortgage interest is a shameful proposition, especially from a Government who have given away so much to those who are best off among home-buyers, and who now wish to deny those who, by definition, are among the worst off and most insecure in our society. It is the worst gesture possible, especially in the period immediately before Christmas. Talk about no room at the inn!
  I welcome the announcement of a debate next week on the autumn statement. I should like to draw the attention of the Leader of the House to the recommendation in paragraph 10 of the report of the Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service that was published yesterday. I should be grateful if the right hon. Gentleman would obtain an assurance from the Chancellor that, as the report states, he will make
  "all statements on macro-economic policy to the House of Commons, where he can be questioned by Honourable Members"
  and not outside the House.
  In view of the fears of hon. Members on both sides of the House, if the Government make the wrong decision and opt for Boeing instead of Nimrod for the airborne early warning system, will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for a statement to be made next week, and also arrange for a debate on that matter before the final decision is made? The right hon. Gentleman will be well aware that hon. Members on both sides of the House are concerned about the impact that the wrong decision would have on jobs and on core technology in this country.
  Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate the widespread concern among local authorities about the continued postponement of an announcement on the rate support grant settlement for 1987–88? A third and unprecedented consultation document asking for responses by 19 December has been published. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that is widely understood to be evidence of a Government effort to delay, rather than a genuine effort to broaden consultation? Is it not the case that the Secretary of State for the Environment is twisting and turning in a desperate effort to buy off Tory Back Benchers by switching grants from the deprived inner city areas of Britain to the better-off home counties? When will the House be in a position to debate the RSG order for 1987–88?
  Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that two weeks ago I asked him for an early debate on the privatisation of Rolls-Royce? Will he tell us when that debate will take place so that we can expose the Government's decision to use £100 million of public resources to promote the sale of public assets?
  Mr. Biffen: I shall deal with those five points in the sequence in which they were presented.

  661
  I heard what the right hon. Gentleman said about the debate on mortgage interest payments and social security. However, I thought that the situation that he described was admirably rebutted by my hon. Friend the Minister of State when he made the statement yesterday. However, there will be a debate and the arguments can doubtless be expanded.
  The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the autumn statement, and I confirm that the report of the Treasury and Civil Service Committee will be set down for consideration with that debate. I shall draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the anxieties the right hon. Gentleman has expressed.
  The right hon. Gentleman also asked me about the important decision that has to be made about Nimrod. I shall of course, pass on his comments to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. I fully understand and underline their validity. Perhaps the question of the timing of any statement for debate can be pursued through the usual channels.
  In this pre-Christmas period, I thought that the right hon. Gentleman was being less than charitable about the actions of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment in respect of the rate support grant. My right hon. Friend has shown that he is a shrewd and listening Secretary of State. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that we are fully aware of the imperative need for a statement on the rate support grant. I shall take account of his points but I have already implied that we shall be operating broadly in line with previous practice.
  Although the privatisation proposals for Rolls-Royce cannot appear in the business for next week, that matter could be considered further through the usual channels. However, those really devoted to the topic may like to turn up during the debate after the Consolidate Fund Bill when privatisation may be discussed. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman and I can exchange pleasantries then.
  Sir Kenneth Lewis: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, apart from Members of Parliament, the only person who works double or treble shifts at this time of the year is Father Christmas? Will he promise that in the new year the Government will be as good about giving hon. Members treats as Father Chistmas is?
  Mr. Biffen: The one agonising fear that I have about this place is that there may be too many hon. Members who think that they are Father Christmas.
  Mr. David Alton: Following the reported announcement in the press today that a £240 million radar contract has been signed with Iran, will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement to be made tomorrow morning on that important deal? How does it square with the Prime Minister's statement last week that the Government were consistently and scrupulously pursuing a "no arms" policy with Iran?
  Mr. Biffen: I cannot in any way confirm the hon. Gentleman's interpretation of newspaper comment, but I shall draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence to it. That subject might conceivably be raised in relation to two or three of the topics that have been chosen for discussion on Monday, just as the question of Nimrod could also be raised then.
  Mr. James Couchman: In view of the appalling threat posed to the nation's integrity by the remote possibility of a Labour Government implementing their defence policy, will my right hon. Friend arrange for a day's debate on the whole subject of defence and of our place in NATO as soon as the House returns after the Christmas recess?
  Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend can rest assured that we are approaching the time of year when the individual Defence Estimates are debated by the House. That will happen after the Christmas recess. In the meantime, my hon. Friend may have an opportunity to raise that issue in the debate under the Consolidated Fund.
  Mr. Frank Cook: The Leader of the House has regularly displayed an almost genetic predisposition to fairmindedness and sound logic, and so it is with confidence that I ask him to take note of correspondence received from a constituent of mine today. The constituent is secretary to the British Nuclear Test Veterans Association and she refers to correspondence that has passed between the chairman of that organisation and the Home Secretary on three occasions since mid-September in relation to interference in telephone communications. As yet, that correspondence has not even been acknowledged. Will the right hon. Gentleman prevail on the Home Secretary to make a statement or, better still, to acknowledge that that correspondence has been received and is being given proper and careful attention?
  Mr. Biffen: I shall refer that matter to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, but meanwhile the hon. Gentleman may like to know that my right hon. Friend will be top for questions on Thursday 18 December.
  Mr. Richard Ottaway: When will we debate the recommendation of the Procedure Committee on short speeches?
  Mr. Biffen: Shortly.
  Dr. David Owen: Will the right hon. Gentleman admit that any announcement of a decision not to go ahead with the Nimrod early warning system after the Cabinet meeting on Thursday, the last full day that the House will sit, would be an outrageous way of treating the House, especially as we would not have any knowledge of the RAF's objections? We are not totally happy with the discussions promised through the usual channels, as it is they that have landed us in this extraordinary situation. Perhaps the Leader of the House can tell us why the Leader of the Opposition seems to want to avoid asking the Prime Minister questions.
  Mr. Biffen: That subject has already been well worked over and the right hon. Gentleman has come in on the tail end of it. On his more substantial point, I should say that there is a prospect of a debate on the Nimrod issue tomorrow and again, possibly, during our Consolidated Fund debates. However, I cannot go beyond what I have said to the Leader of the Opposition. On reflection, I hope that the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) will feel that I have been quite forthcoming.
  Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Has my right hon. Friend had time to consider early-day motion 310 on the subject of small dairy farms?
  [That this House believes that should a reduction in milk quotas be necessary, the first 200,000 litres of a United

  663
  Kingdom holding should not be included in any calculations, thus helping to ensure the future of the small family farms which have done so much for the British countryside.]
  Is my right hon. Friend aware of the growing concern felt by the dairy industry? Will he ensure that, as soon as practically possible after the meeting of the Council of Ministers in Europe, the House will have an opportunity to debate the subject fully?
  Mr. Biffen: I well understand the anxiety that there should be a statement on the outcome of that meeting of the Council of Ministers, and I shall bear that in mind. The trouble is trying to determine when that meeting will conclude.
  Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I recently left the Kensington Hilton where miners' homes are being auctioned to the highest bidder? Many of those miners are old people who have suffered severely during the past two or three years as a result of Government policy. They consider such action to be yet another kick in the teeth. I have seen what may be racketeers today bidding for those homes. They will become absentee landlords, and those aged miners will not even know who they are. The miners' houses will be allowed to fall into decay and disrepair. Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that that is disgraceful of the board of British Coal? Will he arrange for an early debate on this matter?
  Mr. Biffen: I do not necessarily accept in any sense the interpretation or motives that the hon. Gentleman attributed to the National Coal Board, but he will have an opportunity to raise the matter in the Adjournment debates on Friday 19 December.
  Mr. Peter Bruinvels: Will my right hon. Friend consider an early debate on law and order and especially on lenient sentences? Will he give us the opportunity to debate the recent Reith lecture by Lord McCluskey, who called for an amnesty for some prisoners awaiting trial because they had committed only minor offences? Surely the punishment must fit the crime.
  Mr. Biffen: I shall certainly draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to my hon. Friend's points. Meanwhile, he may try to discover what options there are at Question Time on Thursday.
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: The Leader of the House will recall that earlier this year the Secretary of State for Defence announced the privatisation of the royal ordnance tank factory in Leeds. It has been sold to Vickers. Now the Christmas pay-off has come and there are 400 redundancies. Will the Secretary of State tell us next week whether he knew of the 400 or 500 redundancies when he approved the privatisation? Many of us believe that if we had a proper policy on conventional defence in Germany Britain would be making those tanks for the British Army of the Rhine.
  Mr. Biffen: Since both privatisation and defence will be debated on the Consolidated Fund Bill, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will consider what opportunities that presents to him to make those points.
  Mr. Tim Smith: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this morning in the Standing Committee on the Coal Industry Bill we were treated to the most extraordinary spectacle of the Labour party, apparently
  664
  on the instructions of Mr. Arthur Scargill, refusing to offer any comment whatever on clauses 5 to 9 of the Bill? That is half the entire Bill—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. It is not in order for the hon. Gentleman to refer to what goes on in a Standing Committee. He must ask for a debate about something.
  Mr. Smith: I apologise Mr. Speaker. In the light of that may we have the Report stage on the Bill early so that we can have a further debate on the subject and so that the Labour party can get its act together?
  Mr. Biffen: I shall most certainly consider the timing of the Report stage, especially as it appears that that would enable the House to have a most entertaining debate.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Secretary of State for Energy to make a statement to answer the important allegations that were made by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontyfract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) and many others who signed the early-day motions about absentee landlords and Rachmanism that is taking place on a grand scale in the colliery areas? Is he aware, for instance that in my constituency a firm picked up houses at £3,000 each, which, according to the valuers, was less than the worth of the land upon which they stood? Within weeks they were sold for £6,000.
  Mr. Willie W. Hamilton: That sounds like a Tory.
  Mr. Skinner: There is no question but that they were Tories. That is why we are having some difficulty getting a debate. I wonder whether, rather than just telling my hon. Friend, as the Leader of the House told me last week, to raise this on the Christmas Adjournment—undoubtedly efforts will be made in that direction—he will also ensure that the Secretary of State for Energy is made aware of this because if the National Coal Board can shut pits because of market forces the same should apply to houses. Market forces were not the criteria used when selling those houses because none of them were out to open tender.
  Mr. Biffen: I am sorry that that rather extended question did not live up to the reputation which the hon. Gentleman created for himself last night with his speech.
  Mr. Skinner: The right hon. Gentleman's head was on his pillow.
  Mr. Biffen: I have my means of knowing. I was told that the speech was so formidable in its content that the day will arrive when every parliamentarian will have "Erskine May" on procedure and Skinner on amplification. The hon. Gentleman said that this week he wanted a different answer to the question he puts fairly regularly, so I will give him a different answer. On Monday he can ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy, who will be answering questions.
  Mr. Michael Latham: Is my right hon. Friend aware that for the second week running two lamentable early-day motions remain on the Order Paper which appear to impugn the honour of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security. Should not those motions either be disposed of in the House or immediately withdrawn?
  Mr. Biffen: I join with my hon. Friend in regretting the language in which the motions were couched, particularly

  665
  as they do not admit themselves to instant challenge when they are tabled. Their remaining on the Order Paper is entirely a matter for the hon. Members who have tabled them.
  Mr. George Foulkes: Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Foreign Secretary to make a statement on why a Foreign Office official attended last weekend's conference of the Committee for a Free Nicaragua where Contra leader Arturo Cruz was preaching terrorism, despite an assurance that I received from the Under-Secretary of State at the Foreign Office that no official would be present? Why did an official from our embassy in Costa Rica attend a conference in San Jose on 24 November to set up a rebel Government for Nicaragua? Is this a U-turn in our policy on central America under pressure from the United States? We must know whether the Government now support terrorism in central America.
  Mr. Biffen: The Government's position has been made amply clear and remains completely consistent, but if the hon. Gentleman would like to take his arguments on this matter further may I tell him that the tenth topic chosen for the Consolidated Fund Bill is Government policy towards central America.
  Mr. Nicholas Soames: Will my right hon. Friend make time available for a debate on the Floor of the House on the dispatch from Her Britannic Majesty's Ambassador in Washington relating to the disastrous visit to Washington by the Leader of the Opposition?
  Mr. Biffen: That is a matter of such lively and general interest that my hon. Friend will find his own opportunities to raise it without requiring my services.
  Mr. James Lamond: Has the Leader of the House heard of an American-owned company called Electronic Data Systems, the chairman of which, Ross Perot, was forced to resign last week because he had paid a £2 million ransom at the request of Lieutenant-Colonel North to try to get released some hostages in the middle-east? That firm employs the most Victorian working conditions, sacking employees on the least excuse, and it has been accused—probably correctly—of employing illegal American immigrants. The Home Secretary is about to tell us that that company has been awarded the contract for the computers in the passport department of the Home Office and the police computer. Should not the Home Secretary come to the Dispatch Box next week to try to explain this further muddle?
  Mr. Biffen: The hon. Gentleman would agree that I might describe his accusations against a company as being more general than precise. Obviously, on Thursday my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will be at the Dispatch Box to take questions.
  Mr. Derek Spencer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the work of the Highfields task force in my constituency is being sabotaged by the city council from a sense of political spite? Can he say when the House may have a debate in which the admirable possibilities of inner-city task forces can be displayed?
  Mr. Biffen: I am fascinated because it seems that at this time of the week the House learns more and more of the
  666
  difficulties of the conduct of good government in Leicester. I take account of what my hon. and learned Friend says, but as a first thought I suggest that he might try to get an Adjournment debate on 19 December.
  Mr. Ted Garrett: Is the Leader of the House aware that an important engineering company in the north-east, Cummins Engineering in Darlington, has announced a closure with 500 job losses and that that is causing dismay in Darlington and other areas of the northeast? Does he accept that that is another sign of the harsh decline in our manufacturing base? Will he find time so that we can discuss this one issue in a serious manner, if not next week, at least when the House returns?
  Mr. Biffen: I understand the anguish caused in the north-east by that closure. I shall refer the question to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.
  Mr. Gerrard Neale: On the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman), may I make a last-ditch appeal on behalf of the Opposition parties for a sign of good cheer from the Leader of the House? In the light of the speedy evolution of their defence policies, could my right hon. Friend find a way of offering them a fortnightly debate when we return after the Christmas recess until some unknown date in May or June to give them the opportunity to explain to the House and the country the latest mutation in their policies?
  Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend makes an appeal which has wide and popular support in the House, but, without being too Scrooge-like, may I say that there is a tactic in one's timing of these great topics. I hope that we shall not use up the defence issue too soon.
  Mr. Greville Janner: Referring to the request of the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Spencer), may I ask that there should, indeed, be a debate about poverty and disadvantage in the city of Leicester, not least in the Highfields area, where the Government are doing little to help, and in outer areas, which do not receive inner-city help? In Braunstone in my constituency, for example, unemployment is about 60 per cent. Such areas tend to be omitted from the programmes in the belief that disadvantage, poverty and unemployment are the prerogative of central areas of cities.
  Mr. Biffen: I would be happy to do a trade with the hon. and learned Gentleman. Perhaps we could give up one sitting which ran through the night, who knows, and in return thereafter have a Leicester-free zone in the affairs of this place.
  Mr. Barry Henderson: Has my right hon. Friend noticed that the Opposition parties are keen to debate subjects, such as South America, Africa and Asia, but banded together to avoid having a discussion about agriculture and fisheries in Scotland on Monday? Can he give an early date when we may be able to discuss that?
  Mr. Biffen: I understand my hon. Friend's point and the genuine irritation that it must cause him and all those who have the fishing industry's fortunes at heart. I shall certainly look at it.
  Mr. Laurie Pavitt: I know that the Leader of the House, in his Father Christmas spirit, was

  667
  disappointed that he could not join his hon. Friends the Members for Reading, East (Sir G. Vaughan) and for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) and other hon. Members from both sides of the House last Tuesday when we gave considerable support to the nursing profession during this difficult period. Will he now study my early-day motion 300 about the nurses pay award 1987?
  [That this House welcomes the appointment of Sir James Cleminson as the new Chairman of the Review Body for Nurses and Midwives Remuneration; notes with concern, however, that the recommendations of his predecessor, in spite of declarations of acceptance by the Prime Minister, were scaled down in 1985 by being implemented for only two months instead of 12, and that in 1986 the 8 per cent. recommended was reduced to 75 per cent. of that award by the commencement of payments only from 1st July instead of 1st April; and now urges Her Majesty's Government not to evade a full and genuine acceptance of the coming 1987 recommendations and to give nurses and midwives their full entitlement, as decided by an independent and objective Review Body.]
  I am not asking for a debate in the immediate future, but, in view of the right hon. Gentleman's well known economic expertise, will he use his influence with the Cabinet to ensure that for the third time nurses are not conned out of the award given by an independent and objective review body?
  Mr. Biffen: The hon. Gentleman asked a wide-ranging and dangerous question which he sought to cloak with flattery. Obviously, I shall read his early-day motion and draw its contents to the attention of my right hon. Friends.
  Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo: Does my right hon. Friend recall that last week I drew his attention to outside pressures on hon. Members resulting from the position in mining areas? May I draw his attention to early-day motion 337, which was laid today and is gathering signatures at a fair rate?
  May I also draw his attention to the fact that the alliance group leader on an east Sussex county council has referred to one of our hon. Friends as a "Tory scab" because he is an ex-miner and a Conservative Member? Should we perhaps provide a short debate to allow the parliamentary leaders of the Liberal and Social Democratic parties either to confirm that attitude or to dissociate themselves from it?
  Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend raises an interesting point. The language that seems to be used by the Sussex elite of the Liberal and Social Democratic parties is not language that we would wish to hear in this Chamber. As for the debate, I am under some difficulty because, as I look at the Benches, I do not see a single, wholesome, working-class prejudice among them.
  Mr. Peter Pike: Has the Leader of the House heard that the Department of the Environment has made it clear that it will soon be informing local authorities of housing investment programme allocations for next year? As we are seeing a deterioration in housing, in both the public and private sectors, will he arrange a debate in Government time on housing as soon as possible after the figures are announced?
  Mr. Biffen: I shall bear in mind the hon. Gentleman's request, but he, too, will be able to share my anxiety about the shortness of time which is available to the
  668
  Government. However, I can hold out to him the modest crumb of comfort that housing is the third topic nominated for debate under the Consolidated Fund Bill.
  Mr. John Watts: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is a matter of great regret that the protracted proceedings on the Teachers' Pay and Conditions Bill had the effect of saving the Leader of the Opposition the embarrassment of having to face my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister at Question Time? Will my right hon. Friend provide injury time during the business of next week so that the sport is not lost for good but merely deferred? Will he consider introducing a Leader of the Opposition's Question Time because many hon. Members take the view that the right hon. Gentleman receives a substantial salary from public funds and many of our constituents, as taxpayers, feel that he provides poor value for money?
  Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend is showing a slightly unhealthy degree of thirst for parliamentary blood sports in making those requests. I must tell him — I say this from genuine affection for the Leader of the Opposition — that we must preserve the right hon. Gentleman because, if he did not exist, he would certainly have to be created.
  Mr. Robert Maclennan: Does the Leader of the House realise that he is being unfair and discourteous to the minority parties, especially in Scotland and the northern quarter of the electorate whom they represent, in rejecting our legitimate, fair request to meet him to discuss the handling of the Abolition of Domestic Rates etc, Bill after the Committee was set up? Is he further aware that that unfairness and discourtesy was parallelled by his bouncing a debate on local agriculture in Scotland on Scottish Members without porper notice or discussion with their representatives? Can he say why he has such double standards of courtesy?
  Mr. Biffen: First, no discourtesy was intended, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that. Secondly, most objective observers will assume that I have been as broadly discourteous to him as to everybody else trying to make a claim on the time of the House which I cannot concede.
  On the Special Standing Committee procedure for the Abolition of Domestic Rates etc. Bill, it is available to the hon. Gentleman to seek that from the House. He does not have to have that from me.
  Mr. Peter Thurnham: In welcoming the Government's consultation paper on the Warnock issues and the rejection of knee-jerk legislation, when does my right hon. Friend feel that we can have time for the fullest possible debate which the Government called for in the paper?
  Mr. Biffen: Not this side of Christmas. But I shall certainly bear in mind my hon. Friend's point because this is a topic which commands genuine interest in the House and the public generally will expect some movement.
  Mr. Tony Banks: Earlier the Leader of the House suggested that hon. Members who were interested in the Government's privatisation programme should join in the debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill. Surely he knows that that is listed as item 16 for debate and has little chance of being reached. Indeed, we may just reach item 12, which is my debate on the arts

  669
  budget for 1987–88 which, as the right hon. Gentleman will be aware, is one of the most interesting casualties from losing Thursday's proceedings. As there is a long list of items, will the Leader of the House explain why we are starting the Consolidated Fund Bill so late this year? Time has been lost and that is a great disadvantage to us.
  As the right hon. Gentleman was very interested in the opinions of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), perhaps he can tell the House whether he heard my hon. Friend's excellent two-hour speech in the early hours of this morning. Is it not time that we had a special award for hon. Members—the Skinner award—for the longest and most interesting speech in a debate?
  Mr. Biffen: I note the hon. Gentleman's point with much interest and with some soul-searching because I have been asked to facilitate the rule on 10 minute speeches. The two cannot be easily reconciled, though through Parliament most things are possible.
  I will consider the hon. Gentleman's point about the lateness of the Consolidated Fund Bill. I was not aware that it was that late or that it had given rise to any inconvenience to hon. Members.
  On the hon. Gentleman's point about the Government's privatisation programme, of course there is an element of hope rather than expectation when I plead this opportunity, but what else can I do?
  Mr. Tony Marlow: May I put it to my right hon. Friend that the sole outcome of the Opposition keeping the House up throughout the whole of today, last night, or whatever, is to prove to those millions of ratepayers and taxpayers who earn less than teachers, who pay the teachers, and who are offered increases in pay less than that offered to the teachers that the Opposition think that the 16·4 per cent. offer is not enough? Is not this, after the Australian telephone calls and the visit of the Leader of the Opposition to the United States, the third Opposition banana skin in a fortnight?
  Mr. Biffen: The fact that we have run through the night is a matter that we must observe. I hope that we will not be too free and easy in being disparaging about our procedures. I am sure that the Opposition believe that they have conducted their arguments by a reasonable standard. I imagine that they, like me, regard the BBC's description of the debate as a marathon filibuster as an unfair description. I hope that everyone outside will note that there was no attempt to guillotine or force a closure during the debates.
  We have our own ways of proceeding. They may seem bewildering to the world outside from time to time, but it is just as well that this place has the confidence of its procedures rather than looking for the approval of editorial comments.
  Mr. Harry Greenway: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the ratepayers of Ealing, including the Leader of the Opposition, have been promised a rates increase of between 60 per cent. and 100 per cent. next April after one year of control by the new Labour majority on the council? In view of the serious effect that that is likely to have upon jobs and industry in the area, the devastating effect that it is having upon pensioners' ability to pay rates and the suffering and hardship that it is causing disabled people and many others, may we have an early debate on that issue,
  Mr. Biffen: I hope that the serious position outlined by my hon. Friend, including the employment consequences that he suggested, will not in any way affect the employment of the Leader of the Opposition, who we all want to be Leader of the Opposition for many years to come.
  I will consider my hon. Friend's wider point, but he will understand thatre is real pressure on Government time now.
  Mr. William Cash: Does my right hon. Friend agree that item No. 17 on the Consolidated Fund Bill list—the protection of the security of the United Kingdom—which is a euphemism for the conduct of the Leader of the Opposition, should be brought forward and that we should have an urgent debate on that matter especially as it has just been announced on the news tapes that 16 NATO Foreign Ministers have agreed that they will bring forward proposals for cutting conventional arms in Europe?
  Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend has raised an important point. However, on the specific issue that he raised, he will realise that I have no power whatsoever, and indeed seek no power, to alter the arrangement of debates for the Consolidation Fund Bill. However, the topic that he has in mind could probably be debated on other maters more likely to be chosen for debate.
  Mr. Kinnock: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. There is some danger of the House being misled as a result of questions on today's business statement. In order that this House and wider opinion is not misled, attention should be drawn to the fact that it was certainly well within the Government's power to use their majority at any stage in the proceedings on the Teachers' Pay and Conditions Bill to ensure that progress was made.
  If it was a pressing matter of attention by the Prime Minister, wanting to bring herself before the House to account for her actions, she had any amount of opportunity to do so, today or even conceivably tomorrow. The number of amendments tabled on the Bill—almost 250—as the Leader of the House has said, was a matter of legitimate debate, well within the power of the House, certainly well within the entitlement of the Opposition, and necessary because of the extremely contentious nature of the Bill.

  Bills and Christmas Adjournment
  Mr. Speaker: I have two statements to make. First, it may be for the convenience of the House if I confirm that the Public Bill Office has treated notices of ten minute rule motions received at 10 o'clock this morning as valid notwithstanding the fact that Thursday's sitting has been broken. The same treatment is being accorded to any notices of presentations of Bills handed in before the rising of the House today for tomorrow, Friday 12 December.
  Secondly, I remind hon. Members that on the motion for the Adjournment of the House on Friday 19 December, up to eight hon. Members may raise with Ministers subjects of their own choice. Applications should reach my Office by 10 pm on Monday next. A ballot will be held on Tuesday morning and the result made known as soon as possible thereafter.

  Mr. Eric Stanhope
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn—[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]
  4.16 pm
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary is in his place looking very spruce and energetic despite the fact that the House has been sitting for almost 24 hours. I also apologise from this place to a number of my constituents whom I should have seen this morning, as I was due to present awards and trophies at a winter fatstock sale in Chelford market in my constitutency. I apologise to the partners of Frank Marshall and Company and to the many people who were expecting me to be there.
  I would like to raise the case of Mr. Eric Stanhope of Park House farm, Gawsworth in Cheshire, in my constituency. Mr. Stanhope's position is both a personal tragedy and one in which the spirit of moral justice has been denied by Cheshire county council through its practical insensitivity and its insistence on the application of the letter of regulations and the law. I cannot fault the county council in its strict legal interpretation of its position. However let me give a little of the background of this sad case.
  Park House farm, which for 40 years has been the home of the Stanhope family, is a smallholding of just under 40 acres, which is owned by Cheshire county council and was first let to Mr. Stanhope's father as long ago as 1942. When Mr. Stanhope senior died, his wife—Eric Stanhope's mother—succeeded exceptionally to the tenancy in 1966. Since then, Eric Stanhope has worked the dairy farm, first for his mother as tenant and latterly for himself, albeit no tenancy has been granted to him by the county council. Following the death of Mrs. Stanhope in March 1982, a notice to quit was served by Cheshire county council on Eric Stanhope and his sister, Miss Rosemary Stanhope, allowing them 12 months to quit the smallholding.
  Since the death of his mother, Mr. Stanhope has struggled to maintain the farm, despite the crippling effect of milk quotas inflicted on the industry in 1984—a burden which Mr. Stanhope, despite his desperate and serious situation, was not spared. In my view, Mr. Stanhope's ability and motivation to farm his holding properly has been severely and adversely affected by Cheshire county council's reluctance to grant him a tenancy in 1982. I must tell the House in all sincerity that it is my understanding that Mr. Stanhope's position, financially and in other ways, has deteriorated since then. In short, Eric Stanhope, who is now in his late 40s, has spent his entire working life on Park House farm working beside his father in the early years and then managing and working the holding for his mother until her death.
  Mr. Stanhope has spent years—in fact, all his working life—at Park House farm, only now to see all his hopes dashed by the county's decision to refuse to allow him to achieve a tenancy. As justification for this decision, the county council cites the fact that it had reviewed the boundaries of all its farms under the provisions of the Agricultural Act 1970, a measure that encouraged the creation of more commercial units on smallholdings through amalgamation. At Gawsworth, it was decided to amalgamate the land, then tenanted by Mrs. Stanhope, with adjoining holdings when that became

  673
  possible. That decision was notified to and confirmed by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. However, the council accepts that the tenants concerned were not notified at that stage of this decision—the impact of which on Eric Stanhope's whole way of life was not to become apparent until many years later.
  Court proceedings for possession were commenced in the autumn of 1983 and the case was finally heard in May this year. The council, in agreement with Eric Stanhope, undertook not to enforce the order for possession until 14 August. Mr. Stanhope continues to reside at the farmhouse but is now awaiting the fulfilment by the council of its promise to enforce the order for possession which it has already obtained.
  Such is the letter of the law. A court has sat and decided that the council is acting within the law in pursuing the course which it has chosen and that it is within its rights to deprive Eric Stanhope of his home, his livelihood and his way of life, should it so wish. That is the law, but, in my opinion, for the county to enforce its rights in such a manner is far from just or moral.
  Many questions need to be answered. First, why were the tenants not notified of the decision taken in 1972 to amalgamate smallholdings in Gawsworth to increase the size of adjacent tenancies by adding to them sections of Park House farm?
  Secondly, the Agriculture Act 1970, under which this decision was made, was enacted to cover circumstances in a very different economic climate in the dairy industry and agriculture as a whole. At that time, there was a need to encourage county council landlords to amalgamate small farms so that they could establish larger, more profitable, viable holdings and so to improve the efficiency of the dairy industry and agriculture. The situation now is so very different. The agricultural sector is over-producing in the EEC and our own dairy farmers are suffering the results of severe milk quotas, with further quota reductions still to come. We are having to strive to reduce dairy output and not increase it. Why should this decision be enforced on economic grounds to which it runs counter?
  Thirdly, the county has given assurances to Mr. Stanhope that it would seek to assist him in his desire to remain within the farming industry. Why, then, is it depriving him of any of the value of the milk quota which is attached to his holding? Without a share of the quota, he cannot even dream of remaining in the dairy industry. Why has Cheshire county council overlooked its promise to consider further aspects of the milk quota attached to the holding? In normal circumstances, should not the council consider allocating to Mr. Stanhope 25 per cent. of the value of his current quota in accordance with the Government's own formula—worth, if my arithmetic is right, some £3,000 to Mr. Stanhope?
  Fourthly, back in 1982, the county gave Mr. Stanhope a promise that it would consider an application for another tenancy from him and that, in recognising the difficulties which he faced, it would consider what might be done to assist. Why has that promise amounted in the end to nothing? Why, despite such an undertaking to assist Mr. Stanhope to find an alternative tenancy, has the council seen fit to remove his name from its own register of approved tenants? What sort of assistance is that? Mr. Stanhope is not the most efficient of farmers. He is not
  674
  even typical of most small dairy farmers, and he has in some respects been his own worst enemy, but he has worked in farming all his life and he is very much part of the local farming community.
  True, the council will argue that, subsequent to serving its notice to quit, it did notify Mr. Stanhope of other vacancies which became available. It claims to have fulfilled its commitment to Mr. Stanhope by considering his one application and rejecting it. It argues that it is justified in removing his name from its approved register because he made no other attempt to apply for an alternative tenancy at that stage. Was the council really justified in expecting Mr. Stanhope to apply for alternative tenancies at a time when his situation was still in dispute? Would that not have jeopardised his own case to be allowed to remain in his home—the home that he had known from his birth—at Park House farm in Gawsworth?
  The council has claimed throughout this sorry saga that it is doing all that it can to assist Mr. Stanhope. So far, that assistance has amounted to very little. In the several years in which I have been helping Mr. Stanhope, I have yet to see a real and positive initiative by the council to consider the true impact of its decision. A man in his late forties, evicted from his lifelong home, deprived of his livelihood and, through the loss of his quota, of any possibility of remaining in the farming industry which has been his life—the future for Eric Stanhope is very bleak.
  I cannot believe that the possibility does not exist of allowing Mr. Stanhope to retain the holding which he farmed for his mother until his retirement—which may be in just 10 years' time. I cannot believe that no solution can be found to allow him to remain in the only work that he has ever known, however badly the council believes he has performed. I cannot believe that the county cannot find some way of assisting him to remain in farming. I cannot believe that a more just handling could not be found for dealing with the milk quota, a percentage of which is Mr. Stanhope's by moral right even if not in the letter of the law.
  What I can believe is that, in pursuing this cold and sad course of action, Cheshire county council has lost sight of the personal tragedy which it is inflicting. Obsessed—I use the word intentionally—by its own past decisions, it is turning a blind eye to the human effects of its policies. It has forgotten that farms are not just economic units; they are communities of people with their own hopes and aspirations—hopes and aspirations which the council has no moral right to ignore, to dash and to shatter.
  It is time that the county lived up to its promises to Mr. Stanhope and genuinely sought a solution to his problems—which it is not only its moral right to do but, more importantly, just. I urge my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to give sympathetic consideration to this sad case and the principle involved. If current legislation needs amendment, it is up to the Government to act.
  4.27 pm
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Donald Thompson): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) on his success in coming first in the ballot. He said that he had cancelled various engagements to be here today to discuss this important matter. It is right that I should have waited here with him so that this issue could be discussed.

  675
  I appreciate my hon. Friend's anxiety about the issue, and especially about the circumstances faced by his constituent, Mr. Eric Stanhope. I am already aware of these concerns because of my hon. Friend's many representations to Ministers about this case. I know that his efforts have been directed to the county council as well as to Ministers.
  County councils are in the best position to judge how to manage and run their smallholdings, and are free to manage them as they think best, bearing in mind all the circumstances.
  We have heard the circumstances of this case from my hon. Friend and this is the right place to air the various views. Perhaps it would help the House if I explained the background to the smallholdings and agricultural holdings legislation. The provision of smallholdings is a traditional county council function. Even though I sympathise with the circumstances faced by Mr. Eric Stanhope, it has to be remembered that one of the main aims of statutory smallholdings was to provide a gateway into farming for suitably qualified young people with limited capital behind them. When the legislation was introduced it was recognised that although some tenants would stay on a small-holding for the remainder of their farming lives, others—and I stress that this latter group were expected to be the majority—would move on to a larger farm in the tenanted sector or would even be in a position to buy their own farms. The vacated smallholding would then be available to provide another young person with an opportunity of a first rung on the farming ladder. Unfortunately, the smallholdings estates have not proved as successful in providing this gateway into farming as might have been hoped.
  One of the reasons for that has been the shortage of farms in the private tenanted sector—a problem exacerbated by the introduction in 1976 of statutory succession in the private sector by the Labour Government of the day. In addition, some tenants of statutory smallholdings have difficulty in building up sufficient capital from a relatively small farm to enable them to move on up the ladder. Nevertheless, the provision of statutory smallholdings at public expense can still be justified if they continue to work towards their original aim of providing a way into the industry for well qualified young people.
  Many successive Governments have recognised the importance of the tenanted sector as a whole as it gives the well qualified outsider a chance to get a farm of his own. The Agriculture Act 1947 introduced lifetime security of tenure to encourage tenants to plan ahead and to look after their land as well as the interests of agriculture generally. This applied equally to tenants in the private sector and statutory smallholders. However, when the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 extended this security to two generations of eligible and suitable successors it was recognised that it was not appropriate to extend these provisions to smallholdings because it was clearly incompatible with the overall objective of providing an entry into farming for young people.
  My hon. Friend well knows that after 1976 there was a general reluctance by landlords to let new land because they feared they might not be able to regain possession for 100 years or so.
  We decided that some change in the law was required to make it more attractive for landlords to let their land, but we realised that any change must have the support of the industry. In 1981 the National Farmers Union and the
  676
  Country Landowners Association proposed, among other things, that succession rights for all new non-succession tenancies should be repealed. This was done in the Agricultural Holdings Act 1984. Tenants on county council smallholdings are therefore in much the same position as new tenants on farms in the private sector.
  However, tenants on statutory smallholdings enjoy certain advantages over their private sector counterparts. The Smallholdings (Selection of Tenants) Regulations 1970, which was amended in 1976, requires the smallholdings authority, in relation to the first letting of the smallholding after the death of the tenant, to consider the suitability of the wife or husband, brother, or sister or child of the deceased tenant if they make an application to take on the smallholding, and only to consider other candidates if the close relatives have been refused the tenancy. They can be refused tenancy. In practice this means that a relative of the deceased tenant whose standard of farming is not above the average or outstanding could have an advantage over the highly promising outsider who may be better trained and more qualified than the close relative. This does not mean that the close relative has an automatic right to succeed to the tenancy.
  I appreciate my hon. Friend's concern over the case of Mr. Stanhope, but it is most important that tenants and their families should be aware of their legal position and that they should make adequate provision for the future on the assumption that they will not necessarily be able to take over the holding. A tenant's executors are entited to claim compensation for the tenant's improvements to the holding. Those include long-term improvements made with the landlord's consent and also short-term improvements. If the parties cannot agree on the level of compensation, the Act provides for the matter to be determined by arbitration. The executors would also have an interest in the proceeds from the sale of stock and farm machinery.
  As I mentioned earlier, regrettably statutory smallholdings have not been notably successful in providing as many young people as might have been hoped with a first step on the farming ladder because few smallholders have been able to move onto larger farms in the private sector. Furthermore, over the past 10 years or so there has been a steady decline in both the number of smallholdings and the total areas of land held for this purpose. However this is in part brought about by smallholdings authorties reorganising their estates as they were required to do under the Agriculture Act 1970. Some authorities have taken the opportunity to increase the size of some of their holdings so that tenants may be able to progress from smaller to larger more viable holdings on the estate. It is possible that tenants from the larger holdings may be in a better position financially to move onto farms in the private sector if the opportunities are available.
  My hon. Friend clearly considers that this is an area where the Government ought to intervene especially because of the difficulties encountered by Mr. Stanhope. I recall that my hon. Friend asked for the law to be changed, but, as the law stands, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has certain limited responsibilities under the Agriculture Act 1970 to oversee the manner in which county councils manage their statutory smallholdings estates. That does not extend to the selection of tenants. This is a matter for the council. I understand that since Mr. Stanhope's mother's death

  677
  they have made certain offers to Mr. Stanhope. The council has tried to help him out of his predicament. My hon. Friend referred to those offers.
  There is also the question of end-of-tenancy compensation in respect of milk quota. As my hon. Friend is aware, milk quota is attached to the land and cannot be removed when the producer leaves. There is, however, an obligation on the landlord under the Agriculture Act 1986 to pay end-of-tenanccy compensaion for milk quota to a lawful tenant of a holding who was in occupation on 2 April 1984. I understand that Mr. Stanhope was not, on that date, a tenant within the meaning of the Agriculture Act 1986 and is not, therefore, legally entitled to that compensation.
  678
  County councils are in much the best position to decide how to manage their estates in the light of prevailing local circumstances and to take into account the interests of their present tenants, well qualified outsiders who are looking for a holding to rent, ratepayers and the general rural community.
  We have heard my hon. Friend's submission on behalf of his constituent. My hon. Friend has asked a number of questions, but he and I know that only the county counil can give satisfactory answers. I shall urge the council to reconsider this case with compassion and in the spirit of moral justice for which my hon. Friend has asked.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-two minutes to Five o'clock on Thursday afternoon.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL
  "The Poor Man's James Bond"
  "The Poor Man's James Bond"
TRANSPORT
  Heavy Vehicles (Overturning)
  Heavy Vehicles (Overturning)
  M25 (Lighting)
  M25 (Lighting)
  Lorries (Nuisance)
  Lorries (Nuisance)
  Coaches (Pollution)
  Coaches (Pollution)
  Road Congestion
  Road Congestion
  Roads
  Roads
  Vehicles (Thief-proof Locks)
  Vehicles (Thief-proof Locks)
  Merchant Fleet
  Merchant Fleet
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Statistical Information
  Statistical Information
  Francis Bradley
  Francis Bradley
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Student Grants
  Student Grants
  Statistical Information
  Statistical Information
  Educational Change (White Paper)
  Educational Change (White Paper)
  Initial Teacher Training
  Initial Teacher Training
PRIME MINISTER
  Westland plc
  Westland plc
  Gas Appliances
  Gas Appliances
  Overseas Visits
  Overseas Visits
  Research and Development
  Research and Development
  Telephone Tapping
  Telephone Tapping
WALES
  Sheep (Radioactivity)
  Sheep (Radioactivity)
  Statistical Information
  Statistical Information
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Hospital Waiting Lists
THE ARTS
  Statistical Information
  Statistical Information
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Visas
  Visas
  Police Manpower
  Police Manpower
  Prisons (Fire-Fighting)
  Prisons (Fire-Fighting)
  Prisoners (Central Criminal Court)
  Prisoners (Central Criminal Court)
  Buckinghamshire (Councillors)
  Buckinghamshire (Councillors)
  Wheel Clamping
  Wheel Clamping
  Statistical Information
  Statistical Information
  Vehicles (Theft)
  Vehicles (Theft)
  Industrial Counterfeiting
  Industrial Counterfeiting
  Police Consultative Committee (Camden)
  Police Consultative Committee (Camden)
  State Security
  State Security
  Heroin Addicts
  Heroin Addicts
SCOTLAND
  Tourism
  Tourism
  Migrant Workers (Dundee)
  Migrant Workers (Dundee)
  Nuclear Accidents
  Nuclear Accidents
  Fast Reactors
  Fast Reactors
  Motor Accidents
  Motor Accidents
  New Towns
  New Towns
  Torness Power Station
  Torness Power Station
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Local Authorities (Capital Projects)
  Local Authorities (Capital Projects)
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Exports
  Exports
  Cement Industry
  Cement Industry
  Shipbuilding
  Shipbuilding
  Manufacturing Industry
  Manufacturing Industry
  Research and Technology Programme
  Research and Technology Programme
  Monopolies and Mergers Commission
  Monopolies and Mergers Commission
  Rover Group
  Rover Group
  Manufactured Goods
  Manufactured Goods
  Leicester
  Leicester
  Compulsory Training Levies
  Compulsory Training Levies
  Takeovers
  Takeovers
  Invisible Trade
  Invisible Trade
  Rolls-Royce
  Rolls-Royce
  Confederation of British Industry
  Confederation of British Industry
  Lawnmowers
  Lawnmowers
  Regional Policy
  Regional Policy
  Textile Industry
  Textile Industry
  Bankruptcies
  Bankruptcies
  Counterfeiting
  Counterfeiting
  M. P. B. Russell and Company Limited
  M. P. B. Russell and Company Limited
  Inward Investment
  Inward Investment
  Training Facilities
  Training Facilities
  Steel Industry
  Steel Industry
  Development Agencies
  Development Agencies
  South Africa
  South Africa
  Austin Rover
  Austin Rover
  Airbus
  Airbus
  "Eighth Company Law Directive"
  "Eighth Company Law Directive"
  Copyright
  Copyright
  Imperial Chemical Industries
  Imperial Chemical Industries
  Multi-fibre Arrangement
  Multi-fibre Arrangement
  Industrial Training
  Industrial Training
  Foundry Industry
  Foundry Industry
  BTR-Pilkington
  BTR-Pilkington
  Package Holidays
  Package Holidays
  United States (Formal Protest)
  United States (Formal Protest)
  EC (Third World Imports)
  EC (Third World Imports)
  Kangaroo Skin
  Kangaroo Skin
  Transworld Festival Company
  Transworld Festival Company
  Statistical Information
  Statistical Information
  Counterfeiting
  Counterfeiting
  EEC Trade Statistics
  EEC Trade Statistics
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Small Businesses (VAT)
  Small Businesses (VAT)
  Black Economy
  Black Economy
  Construction Industry (VAT)
  Construction Industry (VAT)
  Gross National Product
  Gross National Product
  Departmental Publicity
  Departmental Publicity
ENVIRONMENT
  Local Authority Rents
  Local Authority Rents
  Inner Area Programme
  Inner Area Programme
  Marine Pollution
  Marine Pollution
  Publicly Owned Land
  Publicly Owned Land
  Liverpool Garden Festival Site
  Liverpool Garden Festival Site
  Local Authority Finance
  Local Authority Finance
  Conservation Areas
  Conservation Areas
  Sites of Special Scientific Interest
  Sites of Special Scientific Interest
  Listed Buildings
  Listed Buildings
  National Tree Week
  National Tree Week
  Planning Appeals
  Planning Appeals
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Statistical Information
  Statistical Information
ENERGY
  Severn Barrage
  Severn Barrage
  Nuclear Accident
  Nuclear Accident
  Fast Reactors
  Fast Reactors
  Aircraft Flight Restrictions (Violations)
  Aircraft Flight Restrictions (Violations)
  Renewable Energy
  Renewable Energy
  Nuclear Civil Research
  Nuclear Civil Research
  Coal Industry (Investment)
  Coal Industry (Investment)
  Energy Preservation
  Energy Preservation
  Statistical Information
  Statistical Information
  Departmental Publicity
  Departmental Publicity
  Exploration Licences
  Exploration Licences
  Nuclear Fuel
  Nuclear Fuel
  Statistics
  Statistics
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Telephone Calls
  Telephone Calls
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Pensions
  Pensions
DEFENCE
  Education (Research)
  Education (Research)
  Nimrod
  Nimrod
  Equipment (Exports)
  Equipment (Exports)
  1939–45 Medal
  1939–45 Medal
  United States Aircraft
  United States Aircraft
  Statistical Information
  Statistical Information
  Departmental Publicity
  Departmental Publicity
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Social Services (Capital Allocation)
  Social Services (Capital Allocation)
  Private Patients
  Private Patients
  Physiotherapists
  Physiotherapists
  Speech Therapists
  Speech Therapists
  Communication Disorders
  Communication Disorders
  Diet
  Diet
  Doctors (Spouses)
  Doctors (Spouses)
  Hypothermia
  Hypothermia
  Elderly People
  Elderly People
  Benefits
  Benefits
  Orthopaedic X-rays
  Orthopaedic X-rays
  Abortions
  Abortions
  Statistical Information
  Statistical Information
  Disabled People
  Disabled People
  Benefits (Costs)
  Benefits (Costs)
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Hospital Specialties
  Hospital Specialties
  Drug Addicts
  Drug Addicts
  Midwives
  Midwives
  Nurses
  Nurses
  X-ray Mammography
  X-ray Mammography
  Embryo Research
  Embryo Research
  Health Authorities (Staff)
  Health Authorities (Staff)
  AIDS
  AIDS
EMPLOYMENT
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
  Strikes
  Strikes
  Overseas Nationals
  Overseas Nationals
  Statistical Information
  Statistical Information
  Training Schemes (Income)
  Training Schemes (Income)
  Greater Springburn Enterprises Ltd.
  Greater Springburn Enterprises Ltd.
  Job Training Scheme
  Job Training Scheme
  Skillcentres
  Skillcentres
  Ethnic Monitoring
  Ethnic Monitoring
  Inner City Initiatives
  Inner City Initiatives

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: he LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Rochester.

Waiting Lists: London Hospitals
Lord Bottomley: 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 comment on the recently published reports of longer hospital waiting lists in the London area.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Baroness Trumpington): My Lords, the latest waiting list figures for London are disappointing. That underlines the importance of the Government's campaign to reduce excessive waiting lists and times, not just in London but throughout the country, backed by the £50 million waiting list fund. All regional health authorities including those in London have made wide-ranging proposals for future progress.
Lord Bottomley: My Lords, why are the Government closing so many hospitals and ruining local services, thus adding to the waiting lists?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, hospital closures do not necessarily mean a loss of services. Services may be transferred to other sites. New buildings come on stream to provide modern facilities and better health care. A good example is the new Homerton hospital. When this was opened recently three small Victorian hospitals—the German, the Mothers' and St. Matthew's—were closed with the full agreement of all local interest groups.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, does not the noble Baroness agree that the reason for the long waiting lists in London may be partly due to the RAWP allocations introduced by the department some years ago? Although we are grateful for the £50 million input of extra money to reduce waiting lists, can the Minister tell the House what alterations the Government foresee to the basis of the allocations under RAWP?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, details will be announced shortly. The money will go mainly to those regions receiving the lowest increases under RAWP to help with the process of change. The fund is, of course, additional money over and above the general increase in health authority resources.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, is not the most disturbing factor about the substantial increase in waiting lists that the highest figure is for emergency cases, particularly in the London region? Is not that deeply disturbing? Can the noble Baroness comment on that?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the emergency cases are treated with all available speed, I use this opportunity to pay tribute to the ambulance services who, using the most modern techniques, are responsible for saving many a life.
Lord Bottomley: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware of the rise in London of urgent cases that have been waiting for over a month? What is the noble Baroness going to do about that?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the rise in the number of urgent cases waiting for over a month for treatment in London is, of course, a matter for great concern. However, no urgent case should be on a waiting list for more than one month.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the noble Baroness who asked about RAWP is right? Surely that principle has meant that London hospitals have been run down over a period in order to provide better services elsewhere. With great respect to elsewhere, London has suffered as a result. What is going to be done to change that system?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the Government remain fully committed to improving equity of access to services. We shall continue to use the RAWP formula in taking decisions on allocations, although work will continue on improving the formula. The RAWP bridging fund, of which noble Lords will be aware, is a transitional measure. Indeed, in easing the way for schemes that will release resources, it will enable those regions receiving lower increases under RAWP to cope better within their own resources in future.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware, reverting to a reply to my noble friend Lord Bottomely, that closure of hospitals does mean the diversion of patients to other hospitals, most of them overloaded with work cases and underfunded? That is the problem we are facing at the moment.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I must point out that temporary or permanent closure of hospitals is a matter for the local district and regional health authorities. We do not collect centrally information on temporary closures whether of wards or of hospitals. Wards, are closed for a variety of reasons. However, the department is in touch with regional health authorities to ensure as far as possible that unplanned closures are not necessary.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, the noble Baroness may well say that it is the responsibility of regional health authorities. Is she not aware that the actions of regional health authorities are determined by the cash finances available from central government?
Baroness Trumpington: And, my Lords, it entirely depends on where their priorities lie.
Lord Leatherland: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that there is a proposal to close the Victoria Hospital between Buckhurst Hill and Loughton on the

1145
Essex-London border? As a large number of old people live in that district, will the noble Baroness look at that proposal and advise me—in writing if she wishes—of the situation?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I will gladly write to the noble Lord although he will realise that the hospital he mentioned is, I believe, outside the London area. The noble Lord will also be aware that until we receive letters from the community health councils Ministers do not interfere with local projects.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, may I ask whether the Minister in her answer to one of the supplementary questions is implying that the £50 million injection will enable the regions that are receiving the smallest allocations under RAWP to solve their problems in the future? Does that mean that the £50 million will be repeated year after year?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the noble Baroness may perhaps be aware that following the Autumn Statement the Secretary of State announced the establishment of two special funds: the £50 million waiting list fund and the £30 million RAWP bridging fund. These are in addition to the main increases in hospital community health service expenditure.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, is the Minister satisfied that the longer waiting lists do not result from the shortage of nurses?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, there are many reasons for the rise in London.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether she is aware that the question put by my noble friend Baroness Robson was whether this money will be available on a continuing year on year basis? She did not in fact answer that question.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I am sorry, but I thought that that noble Baroness was confusing the two funds. The £50 million waiting list fund will be available over the next two years.

Pedestrian Precincts in Town Centres
2.45 p.m.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: 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 encourage greater provision of pedestrian precincts in the centres of towns and cities.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, given the growth in numbers and scale of pedestrian zones throughout the country, the Government believe such encouragement is unnecessary. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport is currently consulting interested
1146
organisations on revised advice to local authorities on the administrative and legal aspects of introducing pedestrian zones. A copy of this draft advice, Pedestrian Zones—Getting the Right Balance, is available in the Library.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. However, is this country not a little behind some other civilised countries which have pedestrian precincts at the centres of all towns and cities, and is not the provision of these precincts both in the interests of the native citizen and the visiting tourist? Do they not do something to bring back the significance of the centres of our towns and cities? Further, is it not time that London gave a lead in this matter? After all, at the Royal Academy, as the Minister will be aware, Mr. Rogers has an exhibition showing that Trafalgar Square is the centre of London and should be the object of a precinct. Should not the centre of London be Parliament Square, although at present visitors have to jump for their lives if they wish to see Big Ben, the Palace of Westminster and the Abbey?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I shall not be drawn into an argument about where the centre of London should be. What the new note issued by the department tries to point out is that one needs to strike a balance so as to achieve good access to town centres. It emphasises the need for full and early consultation with interested organisations, particularly with groups representing mobility-handicapped people, and it advises on the consideration of vehicle exemptions, including orange badge holders, loading and unloading and security carriers.
Lord Northfield: My Lords, may I refer to something that the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, said? Has the Minister seen the example set by Mr. Richard Rogers in his exhibition in London, showing how Trafalgar Square, perhaps for the first time, could be linked by pedestrian routes to the south side of the river, so that the emerging cultural heart of London is linked back to the old centre? There will be no chance of this great initiative getting off the ground unless the Government begin to take an interest in it. Will the noble Lord have a look at that scheme and encourage his friends in the Government also to look at it with a view to some government action being taken?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I have not seen the scheme to which the noble Lord refers. I shall of course have a look at it and then decide what to do.
Lord Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that, while pedestrian precincts are an excellent idea in themselves, in country towns, where shoppers may come in from villages 10 or 20 miles away, the need for on-street parking is very great and if parking space is to be taken away to make pedestrian precincts, the provision of other parking facilities is essential?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: Yes, my Lords. My noble friend is quite right and that is one of the points which the draft note from the department emphasises. A balance should be struck between good access to town centres and the need to have pedestrian precincts.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his remarks about the disabled, the elderly and all the other people who cannot walk very far and therefore cannot take advantage of these pedestrian precincts. Is he aware that they are having great trouble in some of our inner cities at this time? I am glad to hear that he is bearing them in mind, and perhaps he will let me know how much further the matter can be taken.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: Certainly, my Lords. The draft note is in the consultation period at present and we hope to publish the results in the spring.
Viscount Ingleby: My Lords, following the remarks of the noble Baroness, is the Minister aware—indeed, I am sure he is—that pedestrianisation schemes can become "no go" areas for disabled people unless adequate car parking spaces, which are sufficiently near, are reserved for them?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the noble Viscount is quite correct and that is why a balance needs to be struck.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Government for their consideration of the needs of the disabled and the elderly to have access to these spaces, but will the noble Lord give some thought to the remark of the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, that no progress will ever be made in the promotion of precincts for pedestrians in London unless the Government take a lead?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I have said that I shall take note of what the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, said and I look forward to having a look at this scheme.

News International Wapping: Cost of Policing
2.50 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 how many policemen are deployed at weekends at News International, Wapping; what has been the approximate cost to date and who is responsible for meeting it.
The Minister of State, Home Office (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, the number of officers deployed on any particular occasion is an operational matter for the police and varies according to the perceived need. During last weekend a total of 712 officers were deployed at Wapping. I understand from the commissioner that the additional cost of policing the dispute up to the end of October has been estimated at £4.730 million. The cost will be met from the Metropolitan Police Fund.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that extraordinary reply, but I should like to ask him
1148
whether he is aware that a large number of police stations in inner London are now bereft of men to do the proper job of looking after local crime because of the demand upon manpower at Wapping at the weekend. I know of one police station which had only six policemen on duty last Saturday because the remainder were at Wapping. The cost that the Minster has just announced is absolutely staggering. I should like to ask why it should be borne by the Metropolitan Police rate or by anyone else. Why should not the people responsible for the dispute pay for it?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the need for police officers to be deployed at Wapping is regrettable and must have an effect upon the service which the police are able to provide elsewhere. With regard to the cost of the operation and the reason why it should not be levied on those who cause the dispute, your Lordships will be aware that police costs in areas open to the public are met by public funds.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, I should like to ask the Minister whether he is aware that there is already a precedent. Football clubs which have police protection today have to pay the bill themselves. Why should not Mr. Murdoch and his company, who have created the dispute, pay the £4½million?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the difference is that within a football ground the football club is responsible for the police costs. Outside a football ground, which is the situation at Wapping, the public are responsible for police costs.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, is not the noble Lord, Lord Mellish, aware that Mr. Murdoch did not start the dispute? The union started it.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, from the Government's point of view it is a matter between the employers and the employees.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, is the Minister aware that whoever may have started this dispute the level of violence both in Wapping and in the surrounding streets has now reached an unacceptable level? Is he also aware that many hundreds of police officers have been injured in the course of this dispute, and at the moment lorries carrying News International newspapers are being attacked on the highways? I am sure the Minister realises the seriousness of this situation and I should like to ask what is being done to deal with it.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the Government are very conscious of the terrible situation which has been occasioned by the violence. I regret to note that following the last Question on this matter which the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, initiated on the 17th October, the level of violence has not reduced.

Securities Market: Regulator Information
2.54 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are satisfied with the current arrangements for the exchange of information between regulating authorities on malpractices in the securities markets.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Lucas of Chilworth): My Lords, we have brought into force provisions in the Financial Services Act 1986 allowing United Kingdom regulators to exchange certain information with regulators overseas. We have already signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the United States authorities, and the Government have made clear to the regulators in other countries that they are ready to discuss arrangements to exchange regulatory information. In pursuit of this we have now invited the regulators of a number of the world's most important securities markets to a meeting to explore the scope for further co-operation.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his response. I should like to ask him whether he is aware that we welcome this initiative, as these are criminal activities which can shelter behind different legislative and regulatory arrangements in different countries, although the effect will be felt in the United Kingdom. Would the Minister agree with the Financial Times leader this morning which argues that there should be a body such as OECD to supervise the interchange of information? Would the Minister also agree with the Financial Times that the main objective at the moment is to sign a biltateral agreement with Japan? Will he also tell the House what hope he has of breaking down Swiss banking secrecy?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, for his very warm welcome for the initiatives that have already been taken, However, I cannot agree entirely with the article in today's newspaper which the noble Lord quoted. I can tell the noble Lord that discussions are currently in progress—and I mean currently in progress—with the Japanese authorities.

Business
2.55 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, after the end of the short debate on the economic and social implications of the housing situation and before the short debate on AIDS, my noble friend Lady Trumpington will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on Supplementary Benefit Mortgage Interest. With the leave of the House, I should like as usual to say a word about the two short debates standing in the names of the noble Lords, Lord
1150
Winstanley and Lord Kilmarnock. It is customary in short debates that the mover is allowed approximately 15 minutes and that the Minister should rise to reply not less than 20 minutes before the scheduled end of the debate. In the case of the short debate in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, this means that all other speeches should be limited to a maximum of seven minutes and, in that of the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, to eight minutes. If any noble Lord should speak at greater length, it would be at the expense of subsequent speakers in the debate.

West Glamorgan Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
Dyfed Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

The Housing Situation
2.57 p.m.
Lord Winstanley Lord Winstanley rose to call attention to the economic and social implications of the housing situation; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, noble Lords have listened to my speeches on health matters with kindness and forbearance. However, today, I turn to a subject which I know from my own professional experience is closely related to health. It is housing. A well housed nation is likely to be a healthy nation, but a badly housed nation is certain—not likely, but certain—to be unhealthy.
The evidence for that statement abounds. I shall not catalogue it. I remind noble Lords that the Black report on Inequalities in Health demonstrated beyond dispute that bad housing was at the root of the high mortality and morbidity rates among the underprivileged in our urban areas. Nor should we forget that it was improvements in housing and the consequent reduction of overcrowding which began the defeat of pulmonary tuberculosis, a disease known as the captain of the army of death at the turn of the century, but now hardly a threat at all.
In my maiden speech to your Lordships almost 11 years ago, I acknowledged that builders and plumbers have done more for the public health than all the doctors put together. What are the builders and plumbers doing today? There are approximately 400,000 construction workers unemployed, costing the nation about £2½ billion per year in social security and lost tax revenue. The biggest single contribution to a reduction in unemployment is staring noble Lords in the face—a resolute attack on the housing problem.
Building houses is labour intensive. Repairing or modernising them is more so. Virtually all the materials needed, except timber, are home produced so that there would be no burden on our balance of payments and little danger of excess demand producing inflationary pressure.
I remember the early 1930s, when the construction industry was in the doldrums and unemployment was rising alarmingly. A housing programme with the building of large estates to rent in urban areas put the construction industry back on its feet and dramatically improved the employment situation. Many noble Lords here today were concerned with that work. It left us with some excellent houses and an example which we should now follow. However, the Government appear to have only one aim—how to increase the proportion of owner-occupied housing. They have always been honest about that. Indeed, away back in January 1985, the expenditure White Paper stated flatly:
"The main aim of the Government's housing policy is to increase the level of home ownership."
There was a time when I shared that aim. I believed, as did many, that the division of our society between those who owned houses and those who never would own houses was damaging; but that was at a time of full employment. It was also before the rocketing of house prices which took place under the chancellorship of Mr. Anthony Barber, as he then was.
But things are different today. True we have a larger percentage of owner occupiers (over 60 per cent.) than any comparable European country, but with that we have acquired a record level of personal debt of which the burden of mortgage interest and mortgage repayments form a substantial part. Evictions are family tragedies, and some of them have been brought about by people being persuaded to buy houses when they cannot afford to do so. My citizens advice television programme in the North receives about 1,000 letters every week. For years and years housing has been the main subject, but in recent months it has been rivalled by debt, and the two are closely related.
The real need today, and it will remain the real need so long as unemployment remains high, is for rented accommodation. That was clearly demonstrated by the inquiry into British housing carried out by the National Federation of Housing Associations under the chairmanship of the Duke of Edinburgh. The report of the commission of the Archbishop of Canterbury, Faith in the City, carried the same message.
With regard to cities, let us not forget that the report by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, into the riots in Brixton showed clearly that much of the trouble arose directly from bad housing. My investigation into the Toxteth riots told the same tale.
Now let me give some figures. The Minister will accept them as accurate because he gave them to me in answers to parliamentary Questions. I thank him and his staff for giving me the Answers to the Written Questions so quickly. Had the Government wished to hide the facts, they could well have sat on the Answers until after the debate, but the noble Lord did not do so and I am deeply grateful to him.
In April this year there were 1,351,000 families on local authority housing lists in England alone—a staggering figure. It is one which is not likely to be reduced when council house building programmes have nearly ground to a halt. In the year 1985–86, 110,000 families were accepted as being homeless and
1152
14,400 households were placed in bed and breakfast accommodation at a cost to the nation of £26,200,000. That does not include Scotland. That is £26,200,000 and not a brick laid. The economic folly of such an arrangement baffles all understanding. And all that at a time when nearly 700,000 houses in England alone were unoccupied There were 110,000 families homeless and 700,000 houses unoccupied. If that were not tragic, it would be laughable; but it is no joke to the people who have nowhere to live.
What have we done to bridge that gap? We have the mobility schemes—two national and one regional—to help people to move from one housing authority area to another. I commend those schemes, but as the Minister knows from Answers he has given to me they have not been an oustanding success, partly because the places out of which people want to move are not often the places into which other people wish to move.
As to mobility, I must turn to the ever-widening gap between North and South. Much has been said about the economic aspects of that gap, but the housing situation is widening it. The cost of housing in London and the South-East is now such that our whole pay system has come under threat from the need for a London weighting allowance. Only recently, the London Standard carried a banner headline on its front page: "London office pay rockets." It went on to say that white-collar staff had increased by as much as 23 per cent. in London weighting payments alone. London weighting payments are all very well for those who have any pay, but there are no weighting payments for the unemployed and the pensioners.
What about those in the North and elsewhere who seek posts in London? Talented young people from the North who want to get their feet on to the bottom rungs of the ladder of success find that the ladder is in London. If they are lucky enough to be appointed to a job, they cannot take up the appointment because they cannot find anywhere to live. So much for Mr. Tebbit's bicycle! That works in reverse. Schools and hospitals cannot recruit well-qualified staff because of the difficulty of finding anywhere to live.
Students all over Britain have a desperate housing problem and their parents know that many live in squalor, exploited by Rachman-like landlords. How students manage to live in London, defeats me, and it defeats many of them as well. That brings us to the deplorable situation of houses in multiple occupation, a subject upon which CHAR has done such admirable work. I shall say no more about that because I have no doubt that other noble Lords will touch on it.
The real need is for houses and flats to rent. To provide them, we need a rent structure which aims at covering costs with the help of a much fairer distribution than we now have of the total financial support-tax relief, subsidies and benefits. My, noble friend Lord Banks will deal more fully with that matter. I suspect that he is the only Member of our House who fully understands our muddled and chaotic housing benefit system.
Housing for rent is provided by local authorities which in many cases are far too big and bureaucratic to do the job. Evidence of that bureaucracy abounds. Housing for rent is provided by housing associations and by private landlords who seem now only to

1153
provide houses or flats which no normal people can afford, and by housing co-operatives, of which I hope we shall have many more. With the new freedom that we have given to the building societies, I entertain a hope that we may see some of them reverting to doing what they were originally set up for—building houses. Some may even consider building houses and flats for rent. To do that they would need to discusss the targeting of subsidies and benefits with the Government.
To sum up, our present housing situation is endangering the nation's health; it is contributing to the breakdown of law and order and the escalation of vandalism and crime; it is deepening the gulf between North and South; it is obstructing the re-establishment of manufacturing industry in parts of the country which need it and it is condemning millions of citizens to live in conditions which should not be tolerated in a developed, industrial nation.
It is a crisis. If the Government are tempted to reply in the memorable words of Mr. Callaghan, "Crisis! What crisis?", I suggest that they will deserve the treatment which was meted out to Mr. Callaghan. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.8 p.m.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, there is no doubt that the housing situation in this country is far from satisfactory. I should like to give some figures from my area of Cleveland, which is probably typical of some of the more depressed areas. There is extensive disrepair in much of the mainly private housing stock. That is a growing and major problem. In Middlesbrough, for example, over 1,000 properties are unfit or lack basic amenities. In a recent survey of 10,000 properties in the inner city, 10 per cent. were found to be in a state of substantial disrepair and 64 per cent. had defects in their main fabric.
In Langbaurgh, where about 29 per cent. of the housing stock is pre-1914, 950 dwellings lack basic amenities, and without improvement and repair they will deteriorate to the state where they will become unfit. There is a similar story in the other districts. The public housing picture is not much better. In Middlesbrough, 1,000 inter-war houses need improvement and some 1,500 dwellings of the 1950–70 vintage need upgrading. In Langbaurgh, some 4.700 are affected by shale and have slag filling beneath the floors, which makes them unstable. There is a similar story in all the other areas.
Of the numbers of houses that are in serious disrepair it was stated in the Duke of Edinburgh's report that this number increased by 20 per cent. between 1976 and 1981 and the situation is getting worse. The number may well have reduced in the last six years since this Government have been in office. I hope that the Minister is able to tell us that that is so. Added to the condition of the houses there is the great mismatch between household needs and dwelling types. There is an increasing demand by single people wanting accommodation. In the whole country the demand by single people vastly exceeds supply.
There have been many initiatives recently, such as the low cost home-ownership schemes, equity sharing and land discounts. The housing associations are
1154
playing a great part. Council house sales, I believe, have had their good effect. Indeed many council estates are being sold en bloc to private developers to improve and repair. Many of these schemes may help a lot but there is no doubt that when houses are sold to the private sector the initial enthusiasm of the new owner involves their being repaired and improved. However, I wonder what will happen in years to come when many of those occupiers cease to work and become old. Shall we then reach the stage where some of the less well built houses will be too expensive for them to maintain? Will they increasingly go into disrepair? There are always problems of the increasing expense of repairs and of the unscrupulous repair gangs. It will be necessary for governments to continue to give grants to ensure that these privately owned houses are not only repaired but that their condition is maintained.
In the 19th century many of the houses were extremely well built. They were soundly built, but in this century they became out of date. In Skinningrove, not far from my home, there were well built terraced houses which were repaired and improved with new bathrooms. They were first class houses as a result. To my mind that has been a very much better answer than what so often happens—that they are simply pulled down regardless and either high rise buildings or vast council estates are built, with the problems that they bring both by splitting up families, splitting up the discipline of streets and very often leading to lawless jungles.
I thought that the most interesting report was that of the inquiry chaired by the Duke of Edinburgh. It is very well written, easy to read and generally a superb document. It is a non-political approach, which is very refreshing. The report dealt with the need for good housing and the ability of people to pay for that good housing regardless of politics. I hope that we shall all rise above our political prejudices to see whether the proposals in that document can be put into effect, because I believe they would be very successful.
In particular, the concept of encouraging private enterprise to go into the housing market is useful. I quote one paragraph:
"The City institutions seeking investment opportunities could and should be attracted on a large scale by the opportunities in residential letting … so long as rent levels reflect a fair return on capital—around 4 per cent. inflation-proofed—pension funds, insurance companies and others could put money into financing new homes just as they do for new offices. and building societies could extend their investment from owner-occupation to rented housing. This new flow of finance would then be available to all reputable organisations—local authorities, private sector landlords, housing associations and other non-profit organisations—to meet some of the acute housing need we have identified".
One must not read that without remembering that the report also introduced the concept of grants to individuals rather than to bricks and mortar.
That report highlights many problems and offers many solutions. For example, it highlights the problems of security of tenure. It also exposes many anomalies. It is interesting that while it is different in concept to the present housing policies it was a unanimous report by a diverse group of people. I hope that the Government will see what they can do to implement its provisions.
3.16 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, the housing slogan we have heard most in recent years is that of the right to buy. We have heard very little about the right to rent. We have had a Building Societies Bill before your Lordships' House in which the competing claims of the right to buy and the right to rent were debated to some extent. However, I wish to dwell mostly upon the implications of the right to buy and the right to rent.
The right to buy carries with it a very heavy charge upon tax revenue. We are all aware of that. In recent years the charge on tax revenue has risen considerably. All this represents an indirect subsidy on house purchase. It is an open-ended charge on tax revenue and, as such, upon the resources of the country. I recommend that your Lordships read the report of the Pubic Accounts Committee published only a few days ago which describes some of the worries about the administration and the cost of the right to buy through mortgage tax relief. I do not want to dwell upon them. I shall say that the Exchequer has two worries in this connection. One is the verification of refunds of tax deducted from the interest paid made by the Inland Revenue to the lenders. The other is the test of the validity of a great many claims in respect of mortgages for home improvements. After all, home improvement is the condition, among others, of tax relief on mortgage interest. There are loopholes and serious flaws in administration in both those matters. They are dealt with in the report of the Public Accounts Committee.
But what is the right to rent? We are only just hearing about that. What are the implications? The Government have neglected the construction of houses to rent in recent years. We are now confronted with the position that to buy a house is virtually the only option for many people who are looking for accommodation. Many are not able to buy or to rent and they are "making shift" as best they can. A great many of them are becoming absolutely without hope. That is a quite shocking situation.
On the right to rent, I have another recommendation for further reading to suggest to your Lordships. It is an interview between Mr. David Lipsey, the editor of New Society, and Mr. Ridley, the Secretary of State for the Environment, in the issue of 7th November 1986. There we have a most fascinating disclosure of the workings of the mind of the Minister. He is giving very deep thought to the problem. The right to rent and the building of houses to rent raise far-reaching issues which we have not yet fully studied.
One issue is the basis of rent to be charged for the right to rent. Is it to be an economic rental or a subsidised rental? Are we to differentiate between the public and the private sector? Are the rents of public sector accommodation to be subsidised, but not those of the private sector? What about the security of tenure of rented accommodation, and other issues of that kind? How can we obtain a fresh stock of houses to rent without settling whether or not we are to have rent control and security of tenure granted to unfurnished accommodation?
It may be that we shall finally be forced, if we have the right to buy alongside the right to rent, to consider
1156
balancing the tax concessions for the right to buy alongside the demands for a reasonable rental for the right to rent. We may then be easily led to the conclusion that everyone has to be subsidised in their housing accommodation. That is where we may get to unless we pull ourselves up short and decide where this is leading.
None of that can be decided this side of the election. We all recognise that the Government have no wish to tamper with the mortgage interest relief for house purchase; except to deal with the question of whether two unmarried people living together can take advantage of the £30,000 limit of tax relief on the mortgage, whereas a married couple can have only £30,000 between them. That is an anomaly to which the Public Accounts Committee has referred and it should be justified if it is to be continued.
However, there is enough to occupy the minds of noble Lords—who probably have more time to consider these matters than many Members of another place—in deciding where our housing policy is to go. It will not be solved merely by saying that there are many unemployed workers in the building trade who want jobs and they ought to be set to work. Who will set them to work? Will they be set to work to build public housing or private housing—the right to buy, the right to rent? If so, can we know the economics of that before we consider the social implications? We have grave problems in this area. We are not facing up to the issues of rented accommodation in the private sector. We will not get back the private landlords until there is some economic basis for their investment. Are we to rely wholly on the right to rent public housing with no other right to rent anywhere, except at exorbitant charges for the diminishing private sector?
That is enough for my seven minutes. I have left a minute to spare for my neighbour.
3.23 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark: My Lords, I very much welcome this opportunity to debate a matter of such fundamental concern to the whole country, and I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, for his masterly opening speech.
Housing has moved up the public agenda over the past two or three years, and that has been noticeable in a number of ways. As your Lordships have already heard, there have been a number of well-researched reports, one being the National Housing Inquiry, of which I was a member. I was glad to hear that being commended by the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough. There have been numerous broadcasts and articles and we have again heard reference to some of those today. Those have been marked by a widespread agreement about the seriousness of the situation, including the continuing decline of the rented sector and the evidence that the housing stock is deteriorating overall. We have also heard about some of the fiscal and legislative measures needed to give the country a much clearer and more consistent housing policy.
In particular, many people are now more ready to admit, privately if not publicly, that we need reforms which will create greater fiscal neutrality between the various kinds of tenure. The widespread assumption that only council house tenants are subsidised by the

1157
state is at last being replaced by a more accurate perception of the facts. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, has pinpointed this financial issue with his customary clarity and focused on one of the key issues; that is, whether one subsidises the person or the building. That is one of the main issues which must be worked at very hard over the next few years.
There have been some welcome changes at national level over the past few years. Those include the release of a little more capital into the housing pool and the approval of a new initiative by the Housing Corporation to harness funds from building societies and banks which will increase the number of housing association properties for rent. It may also pave the way for a real breakthrough in bringing private finance back into rented housing.
It has also been good to read about the work of organisations such as Care and Repair Limited which specialise in providing schemes to help old people in the private sector (as has been mentioned) with problems of house repair and improvements, so enabling them to stay put longer. I understand that there has recently been a Department of the Environment grant of roughly ½l million, which will enable this organisation to develop about 25 new schemes throughout the country. That is the good news. There are some signs of hope.
However, the overall position is very serious. It is focused most sharply in the growth of actual homelessness, especially in London and the South-East. There are now more people officially recorded as homeless in London than there were 40 years ago; and most lists are kept as short as possible. That does not include the even greater growth in the list of people who are single homeless and who are not officially recorded at all. It has happened because all parts of the rented sector have continued to decline except for housing associations—a process accelerated by the sale of council houses and flats and the partial closure of some hostels.
In the various debates on housing at which I have been present in your Lordships' House over the past six years, there has always been one recurrent theme: what will happen to the homeless or the less well off if the rented sector declines too far, especially in those places where the volume of council housing is relatively low and sales are popular at discounted prices? The answer is now becoming clearer and clearer.
I heard recently from the local vicar of a lady in a southern part of the Southwark Diocese, which goes down to Gatwick and nearly to East Grinstead. Her husband had left her and she and her child had to leave a tied house. She was due, therefore, to be evicted. Her local council told her they could offer her no accommodation whatsoever in that area but would try to fix her up with temporary accommodation—presumably bed and breakfast—in Thornton Heath or Wandsworth, ironically. In desperation, because she did not want her child to leave his primary school, she took a job in domestic service which happened to be available and gave her accommodation. Her case is one of three in that school alone, and it indicates something of the social cost of the growing lack of rented accommodation.
1158
In London itself, vast sums of money are now being spent to keep families in lodging-houses and hotels, as we have already heard. The number is still rising. Not many of us here would have found it bearable to bring up our families in one room when we were young. When stress is being placed on trying to improve the quality of family life, how can we feel unconcerned about a situation where such pressures are being put upon people who are often ill-equipped to cope with them?
If one stands at the top of the tower block in Guy's Hospital and looks south, one will see one of the largest concentration of high-rise blocks of flats and deck-access estates anywhere in Europe. In the attempt to clear large areas of decayed Victorian dwellings and house thousands of people on a relatively small amount of land, this generation has become landed with a new problem of daunting size. I have been inside a number of those flats and have walked round estates with boarded-up windows, squatters, vandalism and depressing surroundings in many of them—unless work has been done. However, it is becoming clear that things can improve if the money is found to make substantial repairs and major changes to the layout, if tenants are allowed to become more involved and if management significantly alters its style and efficiency. However, that extra funding is an essential part of the total approach. We cannot leave it out. We can see clearly what can be achieved by looking at some of the estates where the money has been forthcoming such as the Henry Prince Estate in Wandsworth.
It is not a question of throwing money at the problem, as is sometimes said, as if it could be solved without financial cost. The cost of human discomfort in such places is very high in human terms as well as in medical and social terms. Old people are afraid to go out at night. Muggings and threats, noise and squalor all lead to mental and physical illness, the break-up of marriages and so on. Racial prejudice tends to increase on such estates. In other words, the cost of doing little or nothing is very high, although it is not easy to measure.
There are two other areas of social cost about which I should have liked to have said something, although I do not have the time. However, I shall just mention them. The first area concerns what happens when young people are forced into the position of having to buy—and again this is an acute problem in London—and then of possibly going through all the agony of repossession. The second area which is emerging concerns the anxieties which are now felt by many council tenants about the possibility that they will be asked to leave their present homes and move somewhere else under the powers provided by the new Housing and Planning Act. The anxiety may be exaggerated, but that it is there is a message which is coming through loudly in many parts of my diocese.
An adequate supply of good housing, with some choice of tenure whenever possible, is a fundamental condition of stable community life. I am sure that that is a concept in which we all believe. In Christian terms, we owe it to our brothers and sisters to see that they have shelter and warmth just as much as food and clothing, for we are interdependent, and the homelessness that exists is a scandal in a prosperous and civilised society.

1159
There is considerable agreement—and this is a positive aspect—on all sides of the community about the way forward. There is already a great deal of money around in housing allowances and subsidies, but most of the time it is not going to the right places. Can we now take the urgent action needed before the human and the economic cost of our present housing situation becomes unbearable?
3.33 p.m.
Lord Raglan: My Lords, I recently read in The House Magazine a profile of Geoffrey Lofthouse, who is the Member of Parliament for Pontefract and Castleford. He told of how he was one of several children of a farmworker who, with their mother, were evicted from their tied cottage when the father died young. They all had to live with grandmother—14 people in a one-up, one-down terraced house in a mining town. Nevertheless, he said that he had had a happy childhood. His story is a marvellous illustration of how the human spirit can overcome the direst material circumstances.
Such a story would not so easily be found today, although no doubt the right reverend Prelate would find another story similar to the one which he told. However, his story would not be so easily repeated because that type of story inspired the post-war mass house building programme, and that programme unfortunately coincided with what can now be seen by everyone as a horrific period of architecture, where the relentless pursuit of novelty and experiment took primacy over most other considerations. As a result, the houses have a dreary aspect and the layouts are muddled and depressing. As if that were not enough, well-tried building techniques were discarded or driven out of fashion, with the result that taxpayer and private owner are having to foot an enormous bill for repairs which should never have been needed.
I hope that I am right in detecting signs of a return to a more caring form of architecture and properties which are better built. Meanwhile, it is important to observe that that great housing programme did not solve the housing problem, mainly because the problem itself changed due to a relatively unpublicised fact which I consider should be better known.
Whereas in the 1950s and 1960s we concentrated on building two-, three- and four-bedroomed family houses, already in the early 1970s it was beginning to be seen that there was an unsatisfied demand for much smaller dwellings, and that was due to a steadily reducing occupancy rate of dwellings. I hope that the Minister has the latest figures, which I know vary from place to place. However, they show that countrywide the occupancy rate has reduced from over four people per dwelling in the 1960s to something around two-and-a-half people per dwelling in the 1980s. In other words, in the space of 20 years the demand for separate individual dwellings has almost doubled. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, adverted to the demand for accommodation for single persons.
What has happened is that mother and father have kept their house, or it is equally likely that they have divorced, needing separate accommodation; granny has gone to an old people's home; lodgers are no longer in favour; and the grown-up children have split off each to their own flat. That is a socio-economic
1160
development which planners could not have foreseen any more than they foresaw the huge increase in private car ownership and failed to allow for it.
The reduced occupancy rate is responsible for a great deal of homelessness, in addition to complicating enormously the needs which must be addressed. People's circumstances are so various that they cannot and should not be coped with by 1960s-type blanket solutions. That is where housing associations come in. I hope that the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, will say something more about housing associations than I have time to say today. However, they are major producers of houses to rent and could produce more. I do not know what to admire most about housing associations—their variety, their ingenuity or their dedication. Certainly without them the housing situation would be very much worse than it is.
The Government need to maintain wholehearted support for housing associations through constructive criticism, as well as encouragement, for if they are well run they are a most flexible and cost-effective instrument. The Government cannot depend upon private money to solve the housing problem. However, it is welcome that recently much more private money has been coming into public housing, bringing more ideas as well as more funds.
Ideas are just as important as funds. I wish to emphasise that we should not hold the belief that all that housing requires is money; it needs a great deal of sensitive thinking as well. We have seen the impersonality, desolation and sheer bad quality that money without thoughtfulness can buy. People deserve a great deal better than that and I hope that the Government for their part will direct a great deal of effort towards seeing that they get it.
3.39 p.m.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, we are all extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, for raising this matter for debate this afternoon. Even without taking up the full time allowed to him he has put his finger on the main point; namely, the question of rented property. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, for what he said about housing associations. As the noble Lord said, there is an immense future for housing associations—for their whole structure, for the manner in which they are handled and for drawing into the problem so many people who want to help and who have not previously found a way in which to do so.
We are drawing to the end of the century, and people will soon be making comments on what this century has done for housing. I think it is important to remember that in about the year 1920 Parliament accepted responsibility for housing policy. It is, if I may say so, very much we—if I may use the word rather sententiously—who carry the responsibility for what has happened. We can say that since that time we have trebled the stock of housing—22 million houses or so. We can say that the general standard of housing in most places has greatly improved. In a recent poll, about 75 per cent. of people said they were satisfied or very satisfied with our housing—I say that to show that this century has not been wholly empty—but that leaves some 25 or 30 per cent. of the population who are not satisfied.

1161
We have been through two world wars this century. We have built ships, aeroplanes, guns and tanks. We have more recently prided ourselves on the invention of aeroplanes like Concorde, the Spitfire and so on. Why have we not succeeded in providing this essential requirement for the country? What has happened to prevent us from doing so? Quite frankly, I think that we have had far too much legislation: something like 20 Acts of Parliament affecting housing have been passed in the last seven or eight years. If one goes back 50 or 60 years, the amount is colossal. What is the effect of this? It is to frighten people—certainly private money—away from going into enterprise, surrounded by regulations, and never quite sure what additional regulations will be added in future.
The problem is quite a simple one. We subsidise council houses. There is an element of subsidy, as the noble Lord said, in owner-occupation. In housing associations there is undoubtedly an element of subsidy. However, there is no subsidy for rented property. Anybody who knows anything about housing today knows that rented property is the first demand. I am certain that your Lordships will find that in any part of the country, as I did last week in Glasgow.
Why can we not solve that problem? What are we finding it so difficult to do? We have already had several reports on this. What is even more curious to my mind is that, if we go overseas, we find that the poorest countries have the highest rate of owner-occupation, notably, the Philippines, Bangladesh, India and maybe others, whereas the richest country in Europe has the highest rate of rented property, and that is Switzerland.
Why are we denying the right to people to have rented property? The answer, of course, is Rachman. But Rachman is no answer to any question at all. There are wicked landlords; there are wicked tenants too for that matter without any doubt. It is no good pretending that one can answer the question that way. We can find a way if we want to. If the House demands it, we shall get that way.
I do not want to press the Government too far, but I ask just this. Have the Government given any consideration to the next 20 years? I think that we shall need at least 2 million more houses. I believe that owner-occupation will not rise above 70 per cent. It is not a bottomless pit. We can see this happening all over the world and in no case, I think, is it much above 70 per cent. We have, therefore, to provide 30 per cent. I suggest to the noble Lord, if I may, that perhaps half that should be council houses and half market rented houses. Can he give us any indication that this is a matter that he is considering?
I find the greatest encouragement in some of the words of the Minister for Housing, Mr. Patten. He seems to me to grasp the essence of the very subject we are discussing today. I wish him good fortune, and I hope that he will succeed.
3.44 p.m.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: My Lords, I should like to add my appreciation to the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, for introducing this important subject. I
1162
wish to speak briefly on an aspect of it that I think may have had too little attention over the years; that is, the effect of bad housing on education. I wish to speak in particular of one school of which I have some knowledge as an example of what I am trying to say.
This is a school in Bethnal Green. Bethnal Green is part of London where over the last 10 years there has been a considerable influx of Bangladeshi families. I have no doubt that some of your Lordships know that this has not been a very happy settlement.
These families have three grave social disadvantages. The first is language; they have very little English. Often the parents and grandparents have none and are dependent on their children for any sort of association with the outside world. The second disadvantage is that they are the victims of racist attack. The third disadvantage is housing.
The school about which I am talking is a secondary boys school, Daneford School, which has 650 boys, of whom 450 are Bangladeshi, and the number is going up. In this school between one quarter and one third of the boys are suffering from the effects of bad housing, which takes the form of overcrowding, substandard accommodation and temporary bed-and-breakfast accommodation, sometimes a long way from the school.
I should like, if I may, to give one illustration of the conditions in which some of these boys are living. It is the custom in this school that, when teachers suspect that a child is suffering from bad accommodation in the home, they investigate the matter, seek out the boy's home and tell the headmaster about it. On this occasion the headmaster himself went along with one of his staff, and they found themselves in what he described to me as a Dickensian situation.
There was a broken-down door between two derelict shops on which they had to hammer for about 10 minutes. When they gained entry they found themselves going up a narrow, rickety staircase, with the plaster peeling off the walls. When they reached the first floor they found a family of five living in two rooms. One room was the bedroom, where there were five beds, all touching each other, with very little floor space. The other was the kitchen where they found a pedal bin and a storage cupboard hoisted half way up the wall in an attempt to deter rats. The family was sharing a washroom with other families in the same building.
In conditions such as these, it is surely not difficult to realise that education takes a very low priority. The family is really concerned with survival. That includes any boy who might have been at this school.
This is in Brick Lane in Bethnal Green, and the year is 1986; it is not 1886. Bangladeshi families are particularly ill-suited to coping with the plight that they find themselves facing, first, as I say, because of the language problems; secondly, because that prevents them from being able to understand and handle the situation—to use a rather slang expression—and, thirdly, because they are essentially a rural people. They have come from a rural background and they are seriously maladjusted to the urban environment in which they find themselves. Lastly, they are very unaggressive by temperament.

1163
The headmaster was talking to me about a situation—and it is not just an isolated situation—in which a boy at his school was the only member of his family who knew enough English to go round to the authorities, the housing associations and the local council in search of accommodation. Imagine the stress that that boy undergoes when he knows that the whole family are depending on him. He may be only a 13 or 14 year-old, and he is tramping the streets during school hours and thus missing such schooling as he might have.
Another problem of course is temporary bed and breakfast accommodation, which may well be a long way off. I understand that in Tower Hamlets there is very little of it. The headmaster had occasion to interview one particular fifth-year boy who was constantly late for school in the morning. He discovered that this was because he was travelling every day from Heathrow to Bethnal Green. Homework is an impossibility in these circumstances. I asked one of the staff what they did about it and he said, "We forget it. It is useless attempting to set it".
There is one other aspect, and I have already mentioned this in passing. For these lads the streets are not safe. It is an area where the National Front are rather active and the boys' families do not like them being out at night. Particularly in the winter when darkness falls, what happens is that families lock themselves into their small homes, so that the stress and the over-crowding are prolonged by several hours more than they perhaps need be. The school does what it can. The headmaster has intervened with housing authorities on several occasions, twice successfully this term; so much so that I believe some of the local families were queuing up because they thought that if the headmaster was successful in one or two cases with his own pupils he could be successful with other families, and he therefore had to stop the process.
What worries me is that we have here a vicious circle. These people see the only way out of their tragic situation as being education, and yet the situation itself makes education difficult or impossible.
3.53 p.m.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: My Lords, I feel happy to be following the noble Lord who has just sat down because I am glad that he has brought some of the realism required into this debate. I am equally grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark for so doing. I need to apologise to my noble colleague Lord Winstanley for not having heard his speech. I can only assure him that I shall read Hansard. I apologise profusely for not being here.
In recent debates we have talked about government housing policy and we have done it on predictable lines. People like me speak about the frightful statistics of homelessness and the state of Britain's housing, and then the Minister replies by giving the statistics about the degree of ownership. It always sounds callous complacency to me. But when I think about it, and particularly when I read government announcements, I recognise that it is not surprising because the main aim of the Government's housing policy—and here I quote—is "to increase the level of home ownership". What that means is that dealing with homelessness
1164
and bad housing—about which people such as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark and I keep talking—is a lesser priority; and that is the point. The growth of home ownership takes precedence.
It is those consequences that we need to face this afternoon. In the few minutes I have I want to try to invite the House to face them. Expanding home ownership is not an unmixed blessing. Increasing numbers of home owners with low or irregular incomes lead to increasing mortgage arrears, evictions and homelessness. The statistics for mortgage default show that to be true. The number of building society mortgages in serious arrears has risen dramatically over the past six years.
Furthermore, home owners struggling with a mortgage on a low income will also face difficulties when it comes to paying for much-needed repairs. And an increasing number of elderly home owners can neither do repairs themselves nor afford to hire others to do the work for them. The last official house condition survey found that owner-occupation had overtaken private renting as the tenure with the highest number of unfit dwellings. That is a point requiring concentrated attention.
Increased home ownership is not the answer to Britain's housing problems because of the existence of poverty. The poor suffer disproportionately from homelessness and poor housing. Records from Shelter's housing aid centres, for example, show that over half the people approaching them for help are unemployed. The Government's house condition survey shows that the average income of households living in unfit dwellings is only half that of households in satisfactory homes. The same survey shows that the majority of those living in unfit houses would be unable even to afford a loan to pay for repairs.
Ever-increasing levels of home ownership are not the answer because for many of those living in the worst housing conditions today, buying a home is not an option. Some of course are already home owners, but their houses are often in a poor condition which they cannot afford to remedy. A housing policy whose single aim is the growth of over-occupation has little to offer them.
I wish I could stop there. I have argued that a policy whose single and overbearing aim is to increase the number of home owners in Britain will not deal with the real housing problems we face today. But there is more to it than that. Increased home ownership does not simply fail to help the homeless: a policy of expanding home ownership at all costs, which is the policy at the moment, actually reduces the chances of those people of having a decent home.
First, let us remember that because of the links between poverty and bad housing the provision of good-quality rented houses has been vital to securing decent accommodation for the homeless and those living in overcrowded or unfit houses. That is the raison detre of the policies of having local authorities provide housing and of the existence of housing associations. But the Government's policy to promote home ownership does a little worse than that because they set out to make home ownership more attractive while renting has been made less attractive. By that I mean that rents have been forced up by cutting

1165
subsidies and housing benefit. Meanwhile, financial support for home owners has remained untouched. Investment in repairs and improvements for rented housing has also been restricted. Therefore the message is loud and clear: if you want to have a home, you have to buy it.
Figures for public spending tell the same story. This is the reality of what passes for housing policy today, and we see its consequences in the increasing numbers of homeless, in the rising bill for disrepair, and (may I say it?) in the increase in house prices. Let us not forget the human suffering which lies behind the statistics. Poor conditions, cold and damp undermine people's health, particularly among children and the elderly.
Strain and insecurity lead to anxiety and depression; relations between husband and wife are poisoned; and children are growing up emotionally scarred by homelessness. That is the daily damage that is being done. Encouragement of home ownership is not incompatible with a housing policy with the main aim of dealing with Britain's major housing problems. It is however a matter of putting each aim into perspective. In my view, the single most important objective should be to end the scandal of homelessness and bad housing.
I hope that when the Minister replies—I know that his heart is in the right place because we have chatted many times—he will be able to tell me that the Government have taken this on board and have recognised that the consequence of their policy is not what they hoped. The policy is in fact having consequences which are unacceptable. I hope that the Government will take steps to remedy it.
4 p.m.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, noble Lords will doubtless have realised that those speaking from these Benches in the debate initiated by my noble friend are trying to take a particular sector of housing and deal with it in the brief time that we have. I have chosen to speak about homelessness among our youth. I do so with a certain reluctance because this is a subject that I am sure would have been dealt with by a friend whose memorial service we attended this morning. I am sure that noble Lords will echo my sentiments that it is a great sadness that Lord Crawshaw of Aintree is not here to join in this debate.
There is enormous evidence of an increase in homelessness among the youth of this country, not just in the inner cities but throughout the length and breadth of the nation. Government and local authority reports, the advice agencies and other local surveys confirm this. The figures show that in 1985, in addition to the 93,830 families who were homeless, there were some 80,000 homeless young people. There were 50,000 in board and lodging, much of which was substandard.
Leaving home is important to young people. It is part of growing up, and the vast majority of young people leave home between the ages of 16 and 25. They identify the leaving of home as one of the most important events in their lives. The Review Group of the Youth Service found that 49 per cent. of children expect to leave home by the time they are 20, and 75 per cent. expect to leave home by the time they are 25.
1166
Furthermore 71 per cent. of them expect it to be very difficult to find accommodation or doubt whether they will be able to find accommodation at all. Actually, about 80 per cent. of single people are still at home at the age of 20, and 66 per cent. are still at home by the age of 23.
One hears people say from time to time that there would not be so much homelessness and that the problem would not arise if children stayed at home. I have a quotation which I think underlines the situation from the best possible source, the Prince of Wales, who said in March 1985:
"For young people, leaving home and gaining independence is an issue of paramount importance in their lives. This is complicated by the lack of housing and employment options open to them".
The reasons for the problems and for the frustrations are clearly to do with young people's change of status in the labour market—the dramatic rise in youth unemployment, which reduces their ability to find employment, while adult unemployment reduces the family's ability to continue to support them at home. The steep decline in private sector rented accommodation has already been referred to many times. It has more than halved over the past 10 to 15 years.
The fact that young people do not qualify under the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977, now superseded by the Housing Act 1985; the fact that local authorities traditionally give a lower priority to young people and, indeed, some local authorities will not register them at all on their waiting lists; and the fact that the 1985 regulations on board and lodgings restrict the maximum amount of benefit to the young and set a maximum of between two to eight weeks for a young person to claim benefit as a hoarder in any one area are dreadful problems for those under 26. I dare say that my noble friend Lord Banks will deal with that matter when he speaks in a few minutes.
Many landlords do not accept tenants under 18. Their belief, understandably, is that such tenants cannot be sued for the rent and that minors cannot enter into contracts or hold a legal estate in land. What, then, are we to do? I believe that the first and major step is a recognition of the problem. I believe that His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, in highlighting the problems following upon what he has seen under the arches at Charing Cross, has given a welcome lead. He was greatly shocked, like many of us, by the sight of homeless children on the streets. Indeed, shocked we all are by the sight of people in good accommodation blocking the opportunity for him to purchase houses so that some of these children could be housed! I ask those people in Kennington who have very expensive houses, first, to examine their consciences and, secondly, to look at what is happening under the Charing Cross arches and to consider whether Crisis at Christmas is not something to which they can bend their minds.
There is a need for recognition by the Government, as has already been said. There is a need for recognition by the local authorities. Specific measures are needed such as an expansion of shared ownership as starter schemes; bringing in legislation in England and Wales in line with that in Scotland, where it is illegal for those under 18 to be excluded from waiting lists; 16-plus children to be treated as adults so far as

1167
tenancies are concerned; the repeal of the 1985 board and lodgings regulations; the extension of the provisions of Part III of the Housing Act 1985; and the taking up of Shelter's call for a wider interdepartmental review of the needs of young people in housing involving the Department of the Environment, the DHSS and the Home Office. This is not simply a responsibility of the Department of the Environment and the Minister for Housing.
As my noble friend has said, there are problems in schools arising from bad housing. There is a need for counselling of young people on the problems of leaving home. There is certainly a need for the Home Office to consider the aspects of homelessness that bear on increasing crime rates and, particularly, on drug abuse. But is it any wonder that young people, faced with a total lack of anywhere to lay their heads, seek the oblivion of the use of drugs? One may not applaud that, but it is a fact of life. This is not confined to inner city areas. I know that the noble Lord the Minister will agree with me that even in the fair town where he and I both live, there are problems of homelessness. It is an awful start to life to be faced, as a young person, with the possibility of having no home to go to. If this country does not tackle housing as a crisis then we are laying the seeds for a destruction of our society when these young people grow up.
4.9 p.m.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, I wish to deal with the sometimes heartless bureaucracy which administers the matters that we are debating this afternoon. In Danvers Street, Chelsea, an unpretentious little street leading from Paultons Square to the river, there are seven houses vested in the royal borough. Of those, Five are empty and two are occupied by four tenants apiece, all old ladies. Of those eight tenants, six are opposed to the rehousing scheme proposed by the royal borough. One was in hospital when the poll was taken and one, I think, was away with the fairies and had no opinion. I have a round robin from those six objecting to what was proposed and I shall place it in the Library. Most curiously, this hostility of six to none is transformed by the magic of local government double-speak into a substantial majority in favour of what the royal borough proposes, according to the correspondence, all of which I have studied.
The story starts in 1983, when the tenants were advised that their homes were to be refurbished, beginning perhaps in two years' time. They were promised that they would be fully consulted before any scheme was finalised. Such consultation was of course requisite under Section 105 of the Housing Act 1985 and the tenants were quiescent in the belief that it would be fulfilled. During the spring and summer of this year—that is, three years later—they were shown an exhibition of what was intended and what had already been put out to tender. At a subsequent meeting they were allowed to ask questions. No records were kept of that meeting, no minutes; there was no consultation.
In July of this year Councillor James Arbuthnot wrote to the residents' association saying:
"The precise consultation you were offered did not take place. For that, you are certainly owed an apology and I do apologise".
1168
They are not owed an apology; they are owed a consultation. A promise is a promise, and this was more than a promise. It was a statutory obligation and the royal borough is in quite clear breach thereof.
At the meeting, where questions were allowed, the director of housing, a Mr. Kingsford, told these old ladies that rehoused old ladies did not last more than six or seven years and that their personal wishes were secondary to wider considerations. What tact, my Lords!
Meanwhile the tenants had evolved an alternative scheme which they submitted to two consultants who are prepared to be named and quoted—Peter Ford, the housing manager of the WRVS, and Mr. Michael de Styrcea of Chestertons. The latter is a consultant also to the Westminster City Council. He said that the tenants' plan was what he himself would have proposed to Westminster if the situation had been under its control and that it would have adopted it without hesitation.
The director of housing, however, refused to consider it on the false grounds that any variation would involve forfeiting the DoE grant in support of this refurbishing scheme, in which case the council would sell the property and rehouse the tenants more cheaply, seriatim in North Kensington, thus breaking up the little community of mutual assisting friends and neighbours, the eldest of whom is 91, one of whom has only one leg and another of whom is on two crutches. But they help one another, thereby saving themselves from being a burden on the rates.
What is one to make of this situation? Shakespeare said it, did he not?
"Man. proud Man. dressed in a little brief authority
Most ignorant of that he is most assured
His glassy essence, like an angry ape
Plays such fantastic tricks before high heaven
As make the angels weep!".
So much for that model of tact, Mr. Kingsford, the director of housing!
What is it that the old ladies object to in the council's plan? First, it gives them windowless bathrooms. These old people do their own laundry and they must have an open window to help dry it. Secondly, the small kitchen window is placed so that they must stand in their own light when confronting the work table. Thirdly, a lot of light is shut out of the living room; and, fourthly, the hot-water tank is to be located in the living room. The tenants' own plan avoids all these objections and the quantity surveyor whom I have quoted above says that it would be a little cheaper to effect than the council's plans.
But that is not the end of the story. Let us go back to 1983. The tenants were promised more than consultation. They were promised a month's notice when the time came to move them. On December 1st of this year—that is, Monday of last week—they were given one week's notice to be moved on December 8th. That was the day before yesterday. I intervened at this point with a call to Mr. Nicholas Freeman, the leader of the council, and asked him to take the situation into his own hands. He promised to do so. I added, somewhat icily:
"And you will write and tell me what you have done, won't you?".

1169
He promised to do so. I have heard nothing since. Another broken promise! However, a messenger called on one of the tenants and asked her to tell the others that they could disregard the week's notice given. There was no official communication to the residents' association via the secretary or the chairman.
Meanwhile I had taken up the matter with the Department of the Environment and I had a letter from the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, who wrote of the local authority:
"They, it seems, have conducted the appropriate consultations and have taken the decision to proceed with the scheme. They are quite within their powers to do so".
He added that in these circumstances the Department of the Environment had no locus standi.
All that this means is that the noble Lord's officials believe whatever the local government officers tell them. There has been no consultation. What the residents have had is an apology for not having been consulted. If I may presume to give a bit of advice to the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, he must develop an intuition for what not to believe. He then will be worthy of that paradigm, his noble predecessor—and I must sit down now—who, when I said, "The Serpentine stinks", got off his backside on to his sturdy stumps and went to smell it for himself. That is what being a good Minister means.
The administration of housing in the Royal Borough is manifestly slack, slapdash and arrogant. As a ratepayer, I object to those characteristics and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, for giving me an opportunity to say so.
4.17 p.m.
Lord Winterbottom: My Lords, let me declare an interest, in that I am chairman of a small housing association. The association is young, small and innovative. I should be grateful to your Lordships if you would permit me to give a brief history of its first years—which leads up to a question which I wish to put to the Minister about the strength which the Government are proposing to place behind Sections 56 and 57 of the Housing Association Act 1985. Those two sections have the rubrics: "Applications for deficit grants" and "Payment of deficit grants".
In order to demonstrate the points I hope that again your Lordships will forgive me if I give a brief history of the events of the first years of this association. Two men for whom I have great respect mortgaged their houses and collected about£120,000. They set out to build starter-homes for young people, without any money being sought from the Government; it came mainly from their own funds, a merchant bank, the building societies and the usual clearing banks.
Their plan was innovative—and I shall not go into details—but it had great success and in the first four years approximately of its life they built over 1,000 houses for starter-homes for young people, without any money at all from the Government.
This caught the eye of the Secretary of State of the day and his housing adviser came to see us to ask whether there was anything the Government could do to help. We wanted to get into the Docklands and we
1170
said so. We obtained a site near Becton on which we could build 15 houses. Those houses were completed and we received over 500 inquiries for those 15 houses—which, I think, is an indication of the size of the problem facing young married couples.
Unfortunately, the Government also said to us, "Would you take over a certain site in the North of England, in Greater Manchester, which we wish you to manage and complete?". We, in our folly—I should say, "I, in my folly"—said yes. This is the point that was made by the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley. What we did not know was that the mores and the standard of living of the North made it very difficult to work on the same principles as those we had worked on in the South. But because the Government asked us to do it, we went on and did it.
This caused us very substantial loss because whereas, in the South, people, after a period of being tenants, bought their own houses and indeed in most cases people in our scheme have bought their own houses in the third year of occupation, in the North nothing like that happens. People seem to want rented accommodation, as other noble Lords have pointed out; and when the period of tenancy ran out they left. Vandalism was very great in Manchester and the surrounding area, and it caused us a great financial problem. We have overcome it but, with the very limited capital backing that we have, if we are to go on it would be of a very great help to us if the Government could assist us (as they seem to be willing to do) by inviting applications for deficit grants and the payment of deficit grants.
That is the real point I should like to put to the Minister. Can he tell the House what weight the Government are putting behind Clauses 56 and 57 of the Act? How much money are they willing to spend and how quickly are they willing to spend it? Perhaps I may just read the two clauses and stress what is of real interest. Clause 56 states:
"A revenue deficit grant or hostel deficit grant is payable to an association in respect of a period only if an application complying with this section is made by the association to the Secretary of State and is approved by him.".
Subsection (2)(b) states:
"shall be in such form and contain such information as the Secretary of State may determine".
Will the Minister, when he replies, give some indication as to whether there is some memorandum or some formula which is generally known, giving guidance on the form of the information required by the Secretary of State for deficit grants of this type?
I feel that the Government take this seriously, because Clause 57(1) states:
"A revenue deficit grant shall be paid in a single sum in respect of the period to which it relates."
That means to say that there will be no tapering off but that they will pay if it is agreed. We now have over 1,000 tenants in houses built as starter homes and, if we could continue the work we have started knowing that there was some money to back us if we should run into problems again, it would be of great assistance.
It seems to be assumed that it is quite easy to build houses and dispose of them. It is not. Disaster can always strike; Murphy's law always applies. For that reason, any government hacking to assist a small

1171
housing association in a time of crisis will be extremely welcome.
4.23 p.m.
Lord Banks: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Winstanley outlined the general situation with regard to housing very clearly and comprehensively. Other noble Lords have looked at particular aspects, and I should like to concentrate for a minute or two on the relationship between housing and social security. This is particularly important because of the increase in poverty in recent years—poverty amid comparative affluence. Those with incomes under 140 per cent. of the supplementary benefit level have increased by 42 per cent. since 1979: an increase from 11·5 million persons to 16·5 million persons. According to a parliamentary Answer, only up to one-thirds of that has been caused by raising the supplementary benefit level and the other two-thirds is due to other reasons, among which of course is unemployment.
Housing benefit is the principal means of assisting people on low incomes with their housing costs. Its introduction in 1982–83 was attended by considerable upheaval; and "upheaval" is the word used by the Social Security Advisory Committee in their report for 1984. In that report they said:
"We have been, and continue to be, concerned about the distress which has been caused to people claiming housing benefit by the difficulties which have arisen in the scheme.".
Those difficulties were in part administrative and in part structural. We on these Benches objected to the transfer of the responsibility to the local authorities and the involvement as a consequence of both the Department of Health and Social Security and the local authorities, with two bases of assessment: one for those on supplementary benefit and one for those not on supplementary benefit. We criticised the complication and, as we saw it, the muddle at that time.
We also criticised the reductions in housing benefit in April and November 1984, which took place so shortly after the full introduction of the scheme. I believe that something like £250 million a year was knocked off the annual budget for housing benefit. However, we were glad when the Fowler proposals for social security included a simplified form of housing benefit with a single set of criteria for assessment. However, we regretted the Government's intention at the same time to reduce housing benefit expenditure by £500 million a year, or 12 per cent. of the current housing benefit expenditure. The Social Security Advisory Committee also objected to that.
It is true that housing benefit cost £4,600 million in 1985–86. as against £1,200 million in 1979–80. Of course one has to take into account inflation in making that comparison, but it is clear that housing benefit is one of the most widespread benefits. But, as the Social Security Advisory Committee say,
"It is targeted on claimants who for the most part have very low incomes indeed.".
In their 1985 report the committee add this—and I think these words are very significant—
"It is important to keep the level of spending in perspective as being principally the result of economic factors and of a conscious policy of transferring responsibility for costs within the housing system. The increase in unemployment, the real terms increase in
1172
local authority rents caused by the decision to reduce subsidies for the dwelling and place more of the cost on the consumer; and the real terms increase in rates, stemming at least in part from cuts in the general level of rate support grant; these have played important parts in determining the present level of spending on housing benefit and the number of claimants.".
That is what was said by the Social Security Advisory Committee, and we would certainly endorse that.
We know that most of the proposed cuts will fall on pensioners with low incomes. The total cost of housing benefit of £4,600 million in 1986–86 should be compared with the cost of mortgage interest relief at £4,750 million—almost the same figure. The housing benefit goes entirely to those on low incomes. The same cannot be said for mortgage income relief. There is a case for one system of assistance to cover both rent and owner-occupied property. The least that should be done is to confine mortgage interest relief to the standard rate of income tax, when some £320 million would be saved for other benefits.
We are also, concerned about regulations which we understand the. Government intend to introduce, which will seek to deal with unscrupulous landlords who raise rents, confident that housing benefit will meet the increase. The method proposed is to enable councils to withhold benefit from claimants. We ask whether it is right to put the penalty on the claimant rather than on the landlord directly. We do not think it is. The unscrupulous landlord, rather than the claimant, should be the Government's target. Perhaps the noble Lord, in replying, will be able to give the House further information as to these proposed regulations.
I have one final question regarding time-scale. As I understand it, the revised housing benefit system will come into force in April 1988. I should like to ask whether the Government are satisfied that the scheme can work smoothly from that date. One thing is certain: we do not want a repetition of the muddle and confusion which accompanied the introduction of housing benefit in 1982 and 1983.
4.43 p.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, like other noble Lords who have spoken in this debate so ably introduced by my noble friend Lord Winstanley, I should like, in the very limited time available, to concentrate on one particular issue. The issue I should like to address is that of home improvement. During the course of this debate so far, we have heard of the very serious human and health implications of the housing situation in Britain today and of its impact on school children and on youth. All this stems from a condition of housing which is sadly wanting and which compares very badly with many of our Continental neighbours.
By now, your Lordships are well aware of the magnitude of the problem. Unfortunately, the statistics most commonly quoted go back to the English House Condition Survey 1981. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, when he replies, can tell us when we shall have the advantage of the information contained in the survey that is currently being undertaken. However, the figures of the 1981 survey are very easy to remember; they showed that, of the 18 million inhabited homes in England, one in four was defective in some way. The survey found that

1173
one in eight houses required major repairs and one in sixteen houses was unfit for habitation.
That is a very serious indictment of the condition of housing in Britain. Let us hope that the latest survey will show an improvement—although I must say that subsequent information does not suggest that this will be the case. The Department of the Environment, when it conducted its 1985 review of the condition of public housing, indicated that something like £19 billion would be required to put that housing in reasonable condition.
The National Home Improvement Council, with which I am closely associated, has recently worked out that if we took the whole of the housing in Britain, both public and private, something like £46 billion would be required to put that housing right. By "putting it right", I do not mean to luxury standards but simply to normal standards of habitation.
There can be no doubt about how large the problem is. Equally, there can be no doubt that this problem cannot be solved all at once. Nor can it be solved entirely by the efforts of government. We need to have a programme of strategy which will combine all the various initiatives over a reasonable period of time to correct this very serious disadvantage from which the nation suffers.
I should like to suggest four steps of a practical nature which can be undertaken to bring about this improvement over a period of time. First, so far as the public sector of housing is concerned, it does seem anomalous that on the one hand the Government should recognise as a result of their own survey that £19 billion would be needed to bring that housing up to standard, and yet that something of the order of £6 billion (which has been obtained from the sale of houses in the public sector) should be effectively frozen or held in reserve and not used to bring this much-needed improvement about. Perhaps the noble Lord can tell us what the Government's policy is in that regard and how they propose to bring into balance the two factors of need on the one hand and availability of a resource so far frozen on the other.
Secondly, there is the question of home improvement grants. I must say that the policy here has been one of stop-go. We had a big surge of home improvement grants in the period 1981 to 1984; indeed, in 1984 the level of such grants was in excess of £900 million. This stimulated people to improve their homes; it stimulated local authorities to ensure that, so far as the public sector was concerned, advantage was taken of these grants; it stimulated the manufacturers of building materials to extend their facilities and builders to extend their capabilities. However, subsequently the sums made available under the scheme were massively reduced and today they are of the order of £400 million.
This stop-go policy gets us nowhere. It is something we have suffered from in this country from time immemorial. Ought we not to have a settled policy in this regard? Ought we not to have a proper recognition of the need for home improvement? My recommendation is simply this: let us return to the 1984 level and let us maintain it until we have made a big inroad into this problem.
1174
Thirdly, there is the question of taxation. Taxes have two impacts: one is that they raise revenue, which is of prime interest to the Treasury; and the other is that they give signals. The imposition (I believe in 1982) of VAT on home improvements may, and no doubt does, raise some revenue. But it gives quite the wrong signals. It is an impediment to doing the kinds of things that ought to be done. I strongly recommend, as part of this programme for improving our homes, that reconsideration be given to the question of VAT on home improvements. I hope that the Department of the Environment, which is responsible for housing, will take up the cudgels with the Treasury, which is responsible for raising revenue. I hope that for once we can give greater priority to a social need than we give to a revenue need.
Finally, I think there is a need for special schemes in relation to particular areas such as inner cities. I am very grateful to the Government who have, in connection with the National Home Improvement Council, made additional resources available for neighbourhood revitalisation projects. There will be a further 25 schemes as a result of revenue made available by the Government.
Perhaps I may conclude by saying that we are, among industrialised countries, second rate in housing. We should not be second rate. We should get back to a first-rate position, and I regard that as a matter of urgent priority.
4.39 p.m.
Lord Davies: My Lords, may I declare an interest in that I am a builder. The quality of a person's housing is a prime component in the quality of his life. Yet vast numbers of people in this country live in inadequate and crumbling properties which are getting steadily worse. I hope that my noble friend Lord Ezra is wrong, but I fear he will be found to be right and that a reassessment will show that we are going backwards.
We seem to have no concerted plan for improvement and no over-all policy on housing that we can discern in our industry. During the last seven years, the building industry, essential to any improvement in the living standards of so many people, has been squeezed to the point where any substantial increase in workload will have to be brought in gradually and with careful attention to regional factors if skill and materials shortages are to be avoided and inflation contained. Although unemployment in the industry has been substantial, the figures quoted by my noble friend Lord Winstanley should be interpreted with caution, not least because jobs tend not to be in the same place as the unemployed.
Sufficient land must be made available in the areas where people want to live. In the South-East, the land element in the cost of a new house already contributes 30 to 40 per cent. of the total cost. By ignoring the problems posed by planning, first-time buyers are being squeezed out of the market and more and more people are being forced to look for rental accommodation, even though many of them would prefer to have their own homes. In 1982, 64 per cent. of purchasers of new homes were first-time buyers. By the end of 1985, this was down to 39 per cent.

1175
An overall and comprehensive policy on housing is desperately needed but it must not repeat the mistakes of the past. Among other things, rigid cost yardsticks on council house building ensured that demolished slums were replaced in many cases by housing of such a low standard that it is already unacceptable.
The policy must also take into account the changes which have taken place and which will take place in the composition of our population. This matter was mentioned earlier. The average size of a household has declined from 2·91 in 1971 to 2·56 in 1985. At the present time, only 28 per cent. of households consist of the traditional family grouping of a married couple with dependent children. Thirty-five per cent. of households consist of couples without dependent children or with no children at all. One-person households account for nearly 25 per cent. of all households. The expected growth in the numbers of the retired population will also need to be taken into account. It will accelerate the trend that I have described.
The major growth in recent years in the sale of sheltered accommodation for the elderly has proved the attraction of this type of property. But for many purchasers, it is not a feasible option. Housing associations as well as local authorities have moved into this field with considerable success, but much needs to be done. In Wales, a demand of 8,500 units has been identified and schemes for 1,200 are currently in the pipeline. However, funds available to the Housing Corporation are restricting actual construction to 500 units a year.
The only discernible housing policy of the present Government is the right-to-buy. It has certainly been a success in enabling many people who wish to own their homes to do so. It has also removed the maintenance of those houses from the public sector. But that policy does not begin to redress the huge problems which face us. Eighty per cent. of the funds released to local authorities from this scheme are not even available for spending on replacement or refurbishment of property due to the restrictions placed on the local authorities by the Treasury. Meanwhile, the total bill identified by the local authorities for their necessary expenditure on housing is a staggering £75 billion.
Of course, there is no possibility of such funds being immediately available. But the sum illustrates the scale of the problem. It is a problem that will get steadily worse unless a concerted and sustained effort—again, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ezra—is made to tackle it. This effort must be developed in consultation with all those involved including the customers—the householders—and the building industry. It will need to include better provision for training in the industry, sadly disrupted by the falling workload of recent years, and also the expansion of capacity for material suppliers, who will not be convinced by a short burst of pre-election activity of the need for a capital injection into their companies to increase output.
Housing is much too important to remain an instrument of economic regulation. It must be brought to the centre, its importance to the lives of so many recognised, and a housing policy developed that tackles the problems presented.
4.44 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, it is clear from this debate that we are confronted by not one issue but by two. There is the immediate issue of the emergency, indeed I would say the scandal, of our present housing position. It is the scandal of people queueing for homes in the council sector; the scandal of homelessness; and the scandal of the decline of our housing stock due to lack of repair. I would add the serious fact that the housing position leads to an immobility of labour, an immobility of people. With housing cheaper in the North and in the West people cannot move to the South and the South-East where the jobs are. This hampers the development of our industry and prevents the development of our education service. For example, it is well-known that teachers cannot take jobs in London because they cannot afford the housing, and they must live somewhere.
We need to do something as a matter of urgency to meet the emergency that is upon us. If anyone is in any doubt about the scandal with which we are confronted, may I echo the words of my noble friend Lord Tordoff who said that one should go under the arches at Charing Cross. If anybody can do so as night falls without a sense of shame, it is time they looked at themselves very seriously.
Suggestions have been put forward as to what we can do. But there is, of course, one action that the Government could take, and could take quickly. It was referred to by my noble friend Lord Ezra. The Government have stopped local authorities spending the money they obtained from the sale of council houses. Will the noble Lord, when he replies, explain to me why, in terms of principle. accountancy or economics—and I agree they are not the same—it is proper for central government to sell capital goods in order to put money into current consumption but it is improper for local government to sell capital housing stock and spend the money either on replacing that capital stock or an renovating their remaining stock and, therefore, keeping it in better condition? I shall be very interested to hear the answer to that proposition.
I beg the noble Lord to find ways in which that money can be released, and released quickly, so that action can be taken immediately to begin the long task—because it cannot be done at once—of meeting the scandal with which we are confronted.
This is not only an emergency. It would be a great pity if, following this debate, with its many illuminating examples of what is wrong, we were distracted from the fact that what we need is a long term view and an agreed housing policy. Listening to the debate today, I believe that there is very broad all-party agreement that something needs to be done so that we begin not only to recover from the present deplorable housing situation but also to ensure that we do not get into it again.
Surely we need an estimate of what housing is required, and where. After all, unlike so many problems of planning, we at least know how many people there are, and we ought to be able to estimate what the likely housing requirement will be over the next two or three decades. We should look at ways in which we can overcome the problem of immobility, which is a serious economic handicap. We must look

1177
at the question of justice between house owners and house renters. That has been mentioned repeatedly by speakers on all Benches this afternoon. I do not pretend that it will be easy. Of course one cannot change the position on home owners overnight; but it is quite clear that there is no equity between the two groups. That needs to be seriously examined; and the need to examine it is recognised on all sides.
We need also—and, here again, I refer to the report from the Audit Commission to which the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, referred—to take into account the very serious deterioration in the value of the capital stock in housing. This is an extremely important national asset. If we do not carry out the repairs and renovations that are required, we are frittering away an extremely valuable national asset.
There are all sorts of reasons for it. It needs detailed examination. No doubt part of it is the over-encouragement to buy. People have bought optimistically, many of them only to find that they cannot keep up with their mortgage payments, or, if they keep up with their mortgage payments, that they do not have tuppence left over to cover the repairs and renovations that are necessary in order to keep the property in reasonable condition.
I should like to add that, if the Government would do something about interest rates, it would begin to ease the problem in an extremely practical way. However, at the moment I am talking about the long-term view. Can we not have some all-party discussions about this and find a common basis? Of course there will be some differences between the parties but—and I am sure that I speak for all parties when I say this—there is no difference between us in the conviction that we cannot tolerate the present housing situation and that we must find a way in the future to deal with the problems more satisfactorily than we have done in the past. Let us get together and tackle these very difficult problems and work out a programme so that we never again find ourselves in the disgraceful position that we are in today.
4.50 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I should like to join with other speakers in expressing my thanks and appreciation to the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, for giving us an opportunity to discuss what, in a social sense, is probably the most difficult problem that is facing us at present.
Other speakers have made reference to the Duke of Edinburgh's report. I think that the last major debate on housing that took place in your Lordships' House was a most excellent debate on that very report. In that debate there was general cross-party agreement that something needed to be done very urgently and decisively. A couple of weeks ago—and I say this to your Lordships because I think it gives an insight into government thinking on housing—I was at the annual dinner of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. The guest speaker at that dinner was the Lord Privy Seal and Leader of another place, who spoke very briefly indeed about housing. The only subject he mentioned was the success in selling council houses, and he said that it was hoped to do better at
1178
selling flats because of the Bill that had just been passed.
That was all very well and I do not want to go into the question of the sale of council houses since enough has been said about it already, but he did not say one word about the people who have no homes or who are badly housed. I am sure it is true, as the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, said, that in general the building industry and indeed everyone involved in building—private builders, the public sector and the trade unions—agree that we have the resources and that all they are waiting for is a change in government policy and finance to be made available which will enable them to get on with the job.
I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, who said that money was not the sole answer. I accept that, but there is no way that the present housing situation can be reversed without a huge input of government money. Many statistics have already been quoted but I feel it is necessary to go briefly through some of them because within those figures there are others which are rather shameful when we analyse them.
The number of families who are accepted as homeless by local authorities rose from 53,000 in 1978 to 100,000 in 1985. The latest returns are expected to show an increase to 120,000. That means that we are adding approximately 6,000 families a year to the list of homeless people. I say that as a nation we ought to be ashamed of that figure. It is an appalling reflection of what we have allowed to happen.
It has already been said that there are over 1 million householders registered on local authority waiting lists and that the numbers are growing each year. While not all of them may be considered as priority cases, they include over 200,000 families who are living in overcrowded conditions; a further 200,000 elderly people who require sheltered dwellings; 10,000 people who are in need of wheelchair dwellings; 53,000 one-parent households and over 200,000 families who are sharing accommodation. During that period (1979 to 1985) new house building by the public sector fell from 130,000 in 1975 to 33,000 completions in 1985. Although of course the private sector has gone some way towards making good that deficiency, it is no way nearly far enough.
It has also been estimated that £19 billion to £20 billion is necessary to put the public sector back into some reasonable shape—not in any luxurious way, as the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, has said, but simply doing necessary and urgent work. However, another factor which emerges is that the condition of private sector housing stock is in an even worse position. That has been said in these reports by people who have an expertise in the matter. An estimated £26 billion needs to be spent on dwellings which are unfit for habitation and in disrepair. Over three-quarters of all unfit dwellings are in the private sector, so it is true, as was said by one noble Lord who spoke a few minutes ago, that we are witnessing the dissipation and almost unbelievable destruction of what is possibly our most valuable national asset in social terms.
What has been the Government's answer to reports such as the Duke of Edinburgh's report? I have no doubt that on 2nd February we shall debate at length

1179
Faith in the City and that it will be a much longer debate than this one. I hope that by then the Government will have changed tack. I want to put to them some figures that I have available which demonstrate the Government's response to the local authority sector. As your Lordships know, the local authorities are governed by what the Government will allow them to spend and fund in the housing investment programme.
In the year 1979–80 there was a global housing investment programme allocation for the nation amounting to £2,800 million. In 1985–86 that figure was £1,650 million, which is a drop of over £1,000 million. That has not been obtained by accident but is a deliberate act of the Government in cutting money for the public sector—and then, my Lords, we start to beef about why local authority stock is deteriorating and very little work is taking place! That is the situation in which we find ourselves.
Obviously I do not wish to take up much extra time but I should like briefly to refer to a broadcast I heard on 27th November, which consisted of an interview with Mr. Peter McGurk, who is the director-general of the Institute of Housing. That is a professional body made up of 8,000 people who operate in both the private and the public sectors and who have no political axe to grind. Naturally he was being interviewed about the fact that the Prince of Wales would be opening an exhibition called Building Communities on the same day. He wholeheartedly welcomed the efforts of His Royal Highness but said that it would be a mistake to take that initiative out of context.
I end my remarks with a brief quotation from him:
"We can't get away from the need to invest and invest in our inner cities on a massive scale. and I welcome the initiatives that are being proposed this morning; but it can't be used to disguise the massive scale of the problem and the need for real government initiatives".
The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, and some noble Lords have spoken about the unfortunate people who are homeless and who have to live under arches, and I have referred to the fact that their numbers are increasing by approximately 6,000 a year. Your Lordships' House will rise a week tomorrow for the Christmas break. We shall go home to our families, who are well housed, and we shall have a very fulfilling Christmas. Are we really being just, if we do not stop for a moment to think about those 100,000 families who are homeless? I think that their views on Christmas would be similar to those of Scrooge in A Christmas Carol.
I hope that the Government will listen carefully to this debate which has been instituted and opened by the noble Lord. Lord Winstanley, and perhaps next year we may find ourselves talking about the awful figures that have been quoted today having been reduced and not confessing that they are continuing to grow. It may then be that your Lordships' House will be seen as some kind of benevolent Father Christmas. It is time to act, and act urgently.
5. p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Skelmersdale): My Lords, this short debate is a little like a jigsaw, a series of interlocking pieces in a box, and after the
1180
speech of the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, I am, too. I do not object to that, because the usual debates we have on the narrow issue of numbers of dwellings and public finance are somewhat excitable and sterile. I am grateful to the noble Earl for allowing me to start at the point at which we in your Lordships' House usually finish.
As the House knows only too well, the problem is that many of the houses available for occupation are too often in areas where they are least needed or of a size and type for which there is little demand. In areas where the need for housing is greatest, far too much of it is standing empty and in some cases unusable. There are acute shortages, particularly of housing for rent, in high pressure areas such as parts of London and the South-East.
The majority of households have a wide range of choice of housing which they can purchase as home owners. But for those who cannot afford to buy their homes the range of choice in the rented sector, public and private, is much more restricted. It is this that needs our concentration now.
The noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, raised the question of labour mobility, and I am sure that we have all heard anecdotal evidence of unemployed workers from the North being unable to take up work in London and the South-East because of high house prices. I agree that there can be little doubt that this is indeed a factor influencing the free movement of labour. Increased labour mobility would improve the flexibility of the labour market as the economy expands and develops, but it would not of itself create jobs. There are probably relatively few vacancies in any part of the country that could not be filled from within the area. Nevertheless, we are keen to ensure that housing is available where people want it and at a price that they can afford.
One of the ways of helping to achieve this would be through a revival of the private rented sector, which has declined by more than 350,000 units in less than a decade. We have already taken some steps to create the necessary conditions for this to occur. In 1980 we introduced assured tenancies, which allowed approved landlords to charge free market rents. The Housing and Planning Act has extended the scheme to renovated as well as new property, and that should lead to a big expansion in lettings. We are looking at further measures which may be introduced in due course.
We all know that there are problems of poor stock condition in both the public and private sectors in some parts of the country. I agree with the reference of my noble friend Lord Gisborough to the report of the committee chaired by His Royal Higness the Duke of Edinburgh. Great progress has been made over the years in reducing the number of homes without basic amenities, but problems of disrepair have been growing. We shall need to await the results of this year's English House Condition Survey to see the extent to which extra public expenditure on the stock in recent years has made an impact on the problem. I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, that we shall release this as soon as possible.
The noble Lord argued that the extension of VAT at standard rates to house improvements and alterations

1181
in the 1984 Budget has hampered housing repair and maintenance work. This was a point of view that was expressed by the industry at the time. I suggest that it has proved somewhat in error. During 1984 repair and maintenance work grew by 3·2 per cent, and between 1983 and 1985 it grew by a total of 5·6 per cent. Over the same period new work increased by 3·8 per cent.
There have also been many arguments about the number of jobs created by a particular level of investment in the construction industry. Indeed, there are as many different views and figures as there are experts. Only policies which are based on those principles will secure the lasting jobs in the construction industry for which we all strive.
While there have been improvements in housing conditions during this century, there have also been, rightly, rising expectations amongst the population. Most of us want and expect a choice of housing. We want more privacy and more space. More of us want and expect to become home owners. The noble Lord, Lord Raglan, spoke about this. It is right that in a civilized society people should expect standards to improve. Nonetheless this provides added pressure on the rented sector.
As the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie of Dundee, pointed out, we now live in a multiracial society. The housing needs of ethnic minorities are an important dimension of housing policy. The issues of racial harassment and discrimination are, as I know from our debates during the passage of the recent Housing and Planning Bill, of great concern to the House. We must avoid the creation of ghettos of poor housing occupied by ethnic minority groups, which can only lead to feelings of bitterness and alienation from the rest of the community. I suggest that this is not normally a fault of the housing providers. I think it is widely accepted that we need a diversity of occupancy. That leads me at least to suppose that the way to achieve this goal is by better education. Teaching Hindu, Pakistani or whatever as primary languages, so downgrading English, is something that cannot possibly help. I was working in Zambia at the time of the highly successful "Black is Beautiful" campaign. I learnt then that we should listen to how the ethnic community speak of themselves, because understanding each other is the only way we shall get integration in housing or anything else. I accept the points that the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, made when he was referring, with all his wisdom and experience, to education.
This leads to all governments seeking to give people a better choice of housing within the inevitable constraints of public expenditure. The way this Government have chosen to do it is by helping people help themselves. This approach has led, I suppose, to the inevitable intellectual struggles in the local authority mind.
It is a vast sea change for them to appreciate that being providers and managers of low rent houses is less appropriate in the run up to the 21st century. We should like to see them, as I am glad to say they are beginning to see themselves, assisting in the provision of a greater diversity in the rented sector, whether public or private. Maintaining those dwellings they own to a high standard and charging rents
1182
commensurate with that. To answer the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, it should be an economic rent.
The noble Lord, Lord Pitt, claimed that elderly owner-occupiers cannot afford to repair their homes. We accept that this is the position with some elderly home-owners who find the business of home improvements confusing and discouraging. We announced last month grants of up to £3 million to meet half the cost of establishing 50 new agency services offering advice and practical help to elderly people. As the House will recall, our Housing and Planning Act contains an amendment introduced by your Lordships, to remove the legal bar in those types of housing association which were not permitted to operate agency services.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark stressed the importance of improving management on our council estates. The Urban Housing Renewal Unit was set up last year particularly to deal with this problem and has made an excellent start. It has now visited 130 authorities and as a result 86 schemes have been approved, involving nearly £41 million of public resources, on estates all over the country. These schemes, which concentrate on improved management, best security and attracting private sector skills and resources where appropriate, will be of direct benefit to some 45,000 homes.
I can remember very clearly responding to the late Lord Crawshaw of Aintree in our last major debate in this House early in the summer. I said then that we had increased provision by £200 million and that we hoped it would be possible to secure further increases. It is of course a great sadness to us all that he is not with us today, but he would, I am sure, have been pleased to know that we have increased the gross provision for capital expenditure on housing next year by £450 million and in particular that we have increased resources for the Housing Corporation—a point which I will return to presently.
In addition to the £3·66 billion of public expenditure that will be used for housing next year, there is likely to be about £10 billion spent by private owners on their own dwellings. It would be wrong to expect all the £3·6 billion to be spent on repairs and maintenance. We also urge local authorities to give priority to the provision of housing for those with special needs which cannot readily be met by the private sector, although any distinctions continue to be eroded. The private sector is now meeting a wider range of needs than ever before.
The noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, pointed out that there are occasions when redevelopment has to take place. I agree that that has to be done with sensitivity both as regards the tenants and the existing use of the area in general. The law is clear that under Section 105 of the Housing Act 1985 the local authority must make appropriate arrangements to enable those of its secured tenants likely substantially to be affected by a housing management matter, such as the proposed renovation of dwellings in Danvers Street, to be informed of that matter and to make their views known.
The authority must take account of the views expressed in reaching its decision. That is not a tenants' veto. I refer the noble Earl to our discussions

1183
on that point during the course of the Housing and Planning Bill. However, within that parameter, consultation is a matter for the council. I was interested to hear the noble Earl say that, although it is the law, consultation did not appear to him to have taken place.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, one of the councillors apologised for its not having taken place.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I cannot intervene or follow up the noble Earl's suggestion of a government inspector because I have no powers so to do. The law, however, provides two remedies. The first is the courts, which I accept are costly and may not be appropriate in this case—I hope that I do not receive a furious reaction from noble and learned Lords—or, secondly, through the local ombudsman. I understand that that case has already been referred to the ombudsman. In those circumstances, it would be inappropriate for me to comment further on the case.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, on that important point, and with regard to the shocking case related by the noble Earl, we take it that the people involved will be allowed to stay where they are until the ombudsman is satisfied. Is that right?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I shall have to write to the noble Baroness and the noble Earl on that point.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, the Minister mentioned the Housing and Planning Bill which we completed a few weeks ago. Is it not a fact that people from this side of the Chamber, not just from my party but others, warned the Government that activities such as those about which the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, has been speaking would take place? That is why we thought there should be a mandatory ballot, paid for by the local authority. It would appear that the tenants do not have the protection under that Bill that the Government thought that they would have.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, it would not be profitable to rehash the arguments we had at that time on the Housing and Planning Bill. The point is that whatever form of consultations one has—
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords—
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am sorry. I should not wag my finger at the noble Earl. I am not talking about the case to which he referred, but it would be inappropriate for the minority to have a veto.
The Government have become increasingly concerned at the growing evidence of the problems faced by people living in privately owned blocks of flats. We strengthened the rights of those tenants in the Housing Act 1980, but the report of the Nugee Committee, which we set up to look at the problems, showed that more needs to be done to ensure that blocks are properly maintained and serviced.
The report provides an agenda for further legislation in this important area. The Bill which we intend to introduce this Session will give tenants important new rights. The main ones are a procedure for asking a
1184
court to appoint a manager where the block has been neglected; the right of first refusal where the landlord wishes to sell; and in leasehold blocks, where the ground landlord has failed in his duties, the right to apply to a court for the right to buy out his interest; tighter control over service funds and insurance, and the right to be consulted about the appointment of management agents.
However, the number of reasonably priced rented units in the private sector continues to worry us. We shall put the greater portion of our efforts into that over the next five years. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, that it is a matter of priorities. At a time when the expressed need of people was for home ownership, it was right to concentrate on that. Now that more and more houses are available to buy (some 160,000 a year are being built) we must concentrate on the rented sector.
The noble Lord, Lord Banks, made the point strongly that people in the rented sector have to pay the rent. The noble Lord asked me about regulations designed to prevent abuse of the housing benefit system by unscrupulous landlords. I am advised that evidence of such abuse is largely anecdotal. My department is currently discussing with the DHSS and the local authority associations ways of tightening up the system to prevent that abuse becoming more widespread. I do not consider that the answer lies in moves further to regulate the private rented sector. That would have serious consequences on our attempts to extend provision of accommodation in that sector.
The noble Lord also asked what steps we are taking to ensure that the system is ready for implementation in April 1988. I assure him that the Government are in close consultation with the local authority associations to ensure that all possible difficulties are smoothed out in good time.
I also agree with my noble friend Lord Gisborough and the noble Lord, Lord Davies, that many socially responsible private landlords would be prepared to provide rented homes if they were allowed to charge a rent which gave them a reasonable return on their investment. We have begun in the Housing and Planning Act—which extended the assured tenancy scheme in the ways I mentioned earlier—to bring responsible private landlords back into the market.
I accept that we need to introduce further changes when possible but, nevertheless, I am not so sure that the fifty-fifty mix that my noble friend Lord Selkirk spoke of is right. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, on taxation. I shall take that matter up with my right honourable friend the Chancellor.
My noble friend Lord Selkirk asked whether the Government are looking towards housing requirement over the next 20 years. He suggested that at least 2 million more homes will be needed. I can tell him that at current levels of building more than 3 million new homes will be built by the private sector alone in that period. In addition, the public sector will continue to add its share of new provision, especially for those with special needs. I cannot predict what share of that new provision will be for rented accommodation. As I said, the Government are taking steps to encourage more investment in the private rented sector. I am confident

1185
that the developers will react positively to the new market opportunities presented to them.
Returning to the present, two specific initiatives have been granted additional resources for next year. The Estate Action Team, which as the Urban Housing Renewal Unit has already made tremendous progress in helping local authorities with the problems of their run-down estates, has been allocated £75 million for 1987–88, an increase of 50 per cent. on this year's allocation. The second initiative will, I am sure, be of particular interest to the House because it centres on the housing association movement and in its initial form is designed to help reduce the number of homeless families in bed-and-breakfast accommodation.
The Housing Corporation's approved development programme for 1987–88, the details of which were announced yesterday, has been increased by £20 million to allow for provision of £30 million to be spent on schemes involving the private sector. Under that initiative, housing associations will receive grant for no more than 30 per cent. of a scheme's cost, with the private sector making up the balance.
The £30 million or so of public investment will therefore lead to additional housing expenditure of about ·100 million. I believe that that is an exciting breakthrough in the arrangements for financing housing association schemes. It is, I understand, similar to an Alliance proposal for a social housing sector, and I hope it will be welcomed by noble Lords in that corner of the House. A major priority for this additional money will be to provide, in consultation with the local authorities involved, interim accommodation for homeless families currently living in bed-and-breakfast hotels, the need for which we all deplore.
The noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, asked whether guidance was available to housing associations to help them apply for revenue deficit grant under Sections 56 and 57 of the housing associations legislation. The answer is yes. I shall send him a copy thereof, and it would be appropriate if I were also to put a copy in the Library of your Lordships' House.
I cannot remember which noble Lord mentioned this matter, and I am rather surprised that there was only one, but the Government regret as much as His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales the death of the proposed homeless hostel in Kennington. There is a most regrettable increase in homelessness, much of which has been caused by social factors. For example, the proportion of those made homeless because of marital breakdown has risen by 25 per cent. since 1979. The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, referred to the problem of youth unemployment and indeed youth housing. Young people are leaving home without fully appreciating the difficulties of finding alternative accommodation.
The right reverend Prelate spoke on homelessness more generally. I agree with this depressing analysis. However, we need to answer this question. Do we have the right mix of government and private provision? It is easy to say that there is not enough government money, but I welcome the appreciation expressed by
1186
the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, of our efforts to increase private sector money for this purpose; for example, in the recent Building Societies Act. While these factors leading to homelessness are largely outside the Government's control, we recognise that there is preventive work that we can do. We are therefore planning to commission research on the housing consequences of breakdown in relationships. In addition, as I said when we debated the Housing and Planning Bill, we shall be setting up a working party with the local authority associations to look at the implications for housing management in the public sector. Both these matters will result in future actions.
However, the House will want to know about the present situation. My department has also offered to those London boroughs with the most acute homelessness problems direct help through the Estate Action Team. Extra resources, as well as the team's knowledge and expertise, have been offered to authorities which can take immediate advantage of them to bring empty units back into use for homeless families. It is up to the local authorities whose need in this area is greatest to use the service which we have provided.
The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, asked about the £6 billion which the local authorities now have as a result of the encouragement which the Government have given them over recent years to attract capital receipts. My noble friends and I, over numerous debates and questions, have explained to the House that local authorities can spend their capital receipts over time on building and renovating houses.
Last year local authority capital spending on housing was £2.6 billion. Of this sum, ·l billion—which I suggest is quite a lot of money—was funded from capital receipts which they themselves raised. I readily accept that they are not permitted by the Government to spend all their money at once. We are told by the economists that this would have dire inflationary effects. However, they do not lose this money. They retain it; and even with the 20 per cent. rule (about which the noble Baroness will know) they spend 50 per cent, within three years. If the noble Baroness wishes further information on that I shall have to write to her because I find it an extremely complicated subject to discuss verbally.
This has been an interesting, wide ranging and challenging debate. I have tried to put over the Government's belief that the main areas of our housing policy—to increase opportunities for home ownership and to provide greater variety and choice in the rented sector—are the most likely to bring economic and social benefits because they are based on providing the type of housing which people want. We admit there are difficult housing problems. These can only be tackled by the public and private sector working together.
It is easy to forget that in 1985 in England alone 160,000 dwellings were built, 110,000 public sector buildings were renovated and 245,000 private sector buildings were renovated, making a total of 515,000 dwellings in all. Public sector resources—although increased for next year—remain limited and must be focused on those parts with which the private sector cannot deal. In this way they will be used to maximum effect.
5.26 p.m.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, the time has come for me to draw this interesting, and I believe very important debate, to a conclusion. I hope that it will prove to have been helpful, but time alone will show that. As much of the debate has been anecdotal—we have heard most important anecdotes from the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, and the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie of Dundee—perhaps I may add my own.
It will not surprise noble Lords to learn that at the time my daughter was a student she regarded me as something of an expert on these matters. When she was housed with seven other students, paying very high rents in dilapidated premises in which neither the heating nor the hot-water system worked, she sought my advice. I advised her to call in the environmental health officer, and that she did. Some three weeks later she rang me in triumph and said, "Yes, he has been and has said that he is not going to tell the landlord we called him in. He is going to say it was a routine inspection and he has declared the place unfit for human habitation. That means the local authority will have to rehouse us". I said, "My dear, it means that the local authority will have a duty to rehouse you. It does not mean that it will do so. It means that it will put you on a housing list". As a result of seeking my advice on housing my daughter became homeless. I hope that my advice to your Lordships' House today may have more helpful results.
We have had some most interesting speeches. It has been demonstrated from all parts of your Lordships' House that this matter needs to be tackled on an all-party basis. It has also been emphasised over and over again in all parts of your Lordships' House that it needs to be tackled by the community itself. In that connection I should say a word of thanks for, and pay tribute to, the work of the community as represented by important organisations such as Shelter, SHAC and CHAR and other organisations working for the elderly such as Help the Aged and Age Concern, which do such splendid work in this field. I would not perhaps include them, but I would add the Churches in this area, because the work that they have done to spread awareness of the problems of homelessness and housing difficulties has been very important.
We have had interesting speeches from noble Lords in all parts of the House. Noble Lords have exercised a great deal of disciplinary restraint in making short speeches—
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Cullen of Ashbourne): My Lords, does the noble Lord wish to withdraw his Motion?
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Gairloch Harbour Order Confirmation Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and, pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, deemed to have been read a second time and reported from the Committee.
Shetland Islands Council (Ham Voe, Foula) Order Confirmation Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and, pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, deemed to have been read a second time and reported from the Committee.

Supplementary Benefit: Mortgage Interest
5.30 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall repeat a Statement made by my honourable friend the Minister of State for Social Security in another place. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, I wish to make a Statement on the arrangements for the payment of mortgage interest through the supplementary benefit system. As the House will know, eighteen months ago, in the Green Paper Reform of Social Security the Government declared their intention to examine arrangements for reducing supplementary benefit help with mortgage interest. This was confirmed last December in the White Paper. We said then we would discuss with building societies and others how we might take this forward.
"In May, following these discussions we referred proposals to the Social Security Advisory Committee for consultation. The main change was designed to limit the amount of benefit payable during the first six months only of a claim to supplementary benefit. We have now considered the report of the advisory committee and other comments and laid draft regulations before the House today that embody the Government's decisions. The committee's report has also been laid together with the Government's response to it.
"The Government have decided to proceed with the principle of limiting supplementary benefit assistance for mortgage interest but to make two significant modifications to our consultative proposals. First, the period in which only half the mortgage interest payable will count in assessing entitlement to supplementary benefit will be reduced from the six months originally proposed to four months. The regulations actually refer to 16 weeks. Thereafter the full amount of mortgage interest due will again become eligible for payment. Secondly, we have accepted entirely the SSAC's recommendation that action should be taken to avoid creating a mortgage interest trap and the draft regulations have been amended to achieve this. This will help some people to qualify for supplementary benefit payments after 16 weeks who might otherwise not have been able to qualify at all.
"The draft regulations also include changes to tighten up the payment of benefit in cases where a home is also used for business purposes, where the mortgage includes a business loan, or where a home is unreasonably expensive. The SSAC have supported all these proposals and we are carrying them through. Our intention is to bring the changes into operation on 26th January 1987.

1189
"There will be an opportunity to debate the regulations shortly but there are several matters I wish to draw to the attention of the House concerning the main change. First, it will only affect new cases. Secondly, the changes will mainly affect short-term claimants. Fifty per cent. of unemployed people leave the register within three months. Thirdly, the draft regulations reflect several important safeguards and improvements. No one over 60 will be affected; those whose claims are longer lasting will get full help after 16 weeks and extra help with interest on any arrears arising from this restriction. There is also a linking rule between claims to protect people who go on and off benefit and a special disregard of income from mortgage protection policies. Fourthly, the reduction in expenditure will be about £23 million compared with £30 million under the original proposals. Finally, we shall be encouraging and helping claimants to make early contact with their lenders to avoid difficulties.
"I should like to stress to the House that the SSAC have acknowledged in their report that the changes should not bring significant financial hardship to the majority of claimants affected. They were of course commenting in the context of the six months' restriction and not the lesser 16 weeks now proposed. Moreover, the Building Societies Associations have indicated that they will respond to changes sympathetically and responsibly. These are welcome and important assurances. I hope therefore that, with the safeguards and concessions I have described, the House will recognise that the Government have struck a fair and reasonable balance between the borrower, the lender and the taxpayer".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. I am especially glad that the noble Baroness has told the House there will be an opportunity to debate these regulations. I can assure her that I shall be as brief as I possibly can, not only because I am very much opposed to Statements turning themselves into debates but also because we have been promised a full debate. Also, there is another very important subject before your Lordships later this evening.
Perhaps I may ask one or two questions in order to clarify the Statement. I welcome, as do all of us, the reduction from six months to 16 weeks referred to in the Statement. I understand from the Statement that the Government reckon there will be a saving of about £23 million as a result of this change. Will the Minister tell us how much an average family on supplementary benefit will lose in these circumstances? I have been given a figure of approximately £8 per week. That is quite a lot for a family on supplementary benefit to find out of their existing benefit, especially as they will also be trying to pay something off the capital.
I appreciate what the Minister said about approaches to the building societies, but there are many people whose mortgages come from banks, finance houses and second mortgages. Will the
1190
Minister tell us whether there have been any sympathetic conversations with those other organisations?
I should also like to ask whether, in estimating a saving of £23 million as a result of these changes, the Government have taken into account that there may be increased homelessness following the difficulties in getting building society interest paid. It seems to me that that should not be overlooked. The figures I have from the Building Societies Association show that in 1979 they repossessed 2,530 properties as a result of failure to keep up payments. By 1985 that figure had risen to 16,590. Homeless families in bed and breakfast accommodation or other emergency accommodation are accounted for to the extent of 10 per cent. by people whose homes have been repossessed as a result of mortgage failures. I feel it is essential that in a fuller debate we should look at this question. There are causes and effects which must be taken together. It seems to me that we are in danger of increasing repossessions, leading to more expense and misery.
Perhaps I may also ask the Minister whether there will be any consideration for special hardship. Without going into too much detail, I am thinking of deserted wives who suddenly find themselves in trouble because their errant husbands have left and fallen behind with the mortgages.
I will not take up further time of the House today. many of my noble friends and I are very apprehensive lest there may be greater hardship and homelessness and all these attempts to make a property owning democracy extend itself may result in hardship and homelessness for some of our people.
Lord Banks: My Lords, I should like to join in thanking the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement made in another place. I am bound to say that we on these Benches are also unhappy about this proposal. We are glad, as was the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, that the period of reduction is to be reduced from six to four months. We also note that the reduction is to apply only to newcomers. I should like to ask the Minister whether it is correct, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, said, that the new cases will lose an average of £8 per week, as compared with now, and that it will be greater in particular cases? Also, is it correct that as a result most claimants will fall into arrears? We know that evictions have been increasing in recent years. Will they not be further increased by this measure? The Statement says that the saving will be £23 million. In view of the drawbacks, is it worth making this particular saving in a social security budget of £44 billion?
I mentioned during the debate which we have just concluded that the cost of mortgage interest relief is £4,750 million and that if that were reduced to the standard rate, a saving of £320 million could be made. I should like to ask whether that proposal has the support of the building society movement. The Statement says that the building societies will respond sympathetically, but what was their reaction to the proposal?
Finally, who else was consulted? For example, was the National Association of Citizens' Advice Bureaux

1191
consulted? It would seem important to have the benefit of the advice of those people who are themselves giving advice to people faced with these problems.
I have pointed out to the Minister my first reactions but, like the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, I want to consider the details very carefully when the regulations come before the House.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I shall do my best to answer both the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, and the noble Lord, Lord Banks. They are both perfectly right: there will be an opportunity to discuss these affirmative regulations, and the question of when will be a matter for the usual channels.
As regards the increase in homelessness, the effect of the proposals must not be exaggerated. Only a tiny proportion of mortgages are seriously in arrears. The proposals will increase the average family's mortgage arrears by £170, which is not over-significant when compared with the average 25-year mortgage debt and the £12 billion interest and £12 billion capital repayments made to building societies in 1985. Indeed, SSAC acknowledges that the original, harsher proposals would not have led to significant financial hardship for the majority of claimants.
The Government acknowledge that lending organisations will need to operate proposals sensitively and they are confident that they will do so. Various bodies have been consulted on this issue—for example, the Halifax Building Society. I cannot answer for the particular body to which the noble Lord, Lord Banks, referred, but numerous bodies were consulted and the answer that we received was that they would deal with the matter sympathetically. I remind your Lordships that when the miners went on strike, no mortgage payments were made but the miners were not dispossessed of their homes. The building societies acted extremely responsibly during that time.
As regards the special position of people suffering hardship, I point out that I have a note on wives but not on husbands. I hope that that is not sexist! However, as regards the position of people suffering hardship—for example, lone parents and the sick and disabled—the Government's decision to reduce the restriction period from six to four months and to avoid the mortgage trap will lessen the impact on all claimants. Those such as lone parents, the sick and the disabled, whose claims may be long term, will have their full interest met after four months, plus any element attributable to capitalised arrears. The Government will look carefully at the operation of the changes to see whether more needs to be done and would advise all claimants to contact their lender at an early stage. The arrangements for the department, with the claimant's consent, to notify lenders that benefit is being paid will greatly assist.
The noble Lord, Lord Banks, asked about whether it was worth making the saving of £23 million. My answer is most certainly yes. The Government are seeking to establish a fair and reasonable balance among the lender, the borrower and taxpayer; the proposals are not just about saving money. I have been passed a note and I am happy to say that the citizens'
1192
advice bureaux were among the organisations that were consulted.
I am sure that I have been asked other questions. However, there is just one other point that I should like to bring out and it concerns a question raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger. I have already said that the average family will have £170 added to its outstanding mortgage loan if it remains on benefit for the full 16 weeks. However, many claimants do not stay on benefit that long: 50 per cent. of unemployed people go off the register within three months. I suggest to your Lordships that we return to this matter on another day.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Baroness whether the building societies have been brought into the heart of this matter. Are not the Government being far too lenient with them? Are they to remain aside like a lot of moneylenders, without feeling some responsibility for a situation which arises from the relations between moneylenders and borrowers? Are not the building societies, or some of them, racing too hastily in the market for unsecured loans and other financial services and not paying enough attention to the trail of distress which is being left behind by overlending?
It seems to me that the building societies, which are amply provided with funds to deal with distress, callously rejected the proposal which I put forward during the passage of the Building Societies Bill that either building societies should be given permission, or the Building Societies Commission should be given authority, to request building societies to create distress and hardship funds.
When I was connected with the movement we had such a fund and nobody was allowed to fall into any situation which involved serious peril to the home and property. Will the Government tackle the matter? they are dealing now with a great many societies that want to be in the moneylending market on a very large scale. If the nation is to continue borrowing and borrowing, those who lend should take some responsibility for the consequences.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I should prefer not to embark on a debate on the rights and wrongs of the building societies. I merely say to the noble Lord that it is surely wrong for anyone to enter into a mortgage commitment on the understanding or otherwise that help will be available from state benefit if he falls on hard times.

AIDS
5.47 p.m.
Lord Kilmarnock Lord Kilmarnock rose to call attention to the measures announced by the Government to combat AIDS, to the research dimension, and to the problems of care and treatment posed by the disease; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we have tabled this Motion because we believe that your Lordships' House has a constructive contribution to make to the national debate on AIDS. I shall not go into the characteristics of the disease, which have been

1193
frequently described in the press, on television, in the Government's leaflets and other leaflets and in advertisements. Despite the focus on the sexual aspects of transmission, I do not believe that there is widespread support in this country for retrospective moral judgments or punitive measures. I think that the general view is that we start from where we are and not from where we ought to be; and the important point is where we are going. I think that that is the Government's view, too.
Recently the Government announced a major public information and education campaign, which we welcome and on which we congratulate them. The Secretary of State's announcement was followed by a debate in another place in which the sense of national emergency cut right across party lines. At this point I should like to acknowledge the openness with which the Government have provided briefings for spokesmen of Opposition parties. All that helps to create an atmosphere in which members of all parties and none can join forces. However, we must all recognise that it will be a long, hard campaign.
My basic proposition this evening is that the campaign cannot ultimately succeed unless it is conducted simultaneously on three fronts: first, prevention, in which education aimed at modification of behaviour is the most powerful weapon: secondly, care and counselling of the afflicted in which the NHS must take the lead, though the voluntary bodies have a vital role, too; thirdly, research, which offers our only hope of defeating rather than containing the disease. An alternative to the military metaphor is that of a tripod which will not stand up unless all three legs are in place.
The Government have begun well on one leg—that of prevention. The Secretary of State has increased funding in that area from the £2 million originally pencilled in for 1986–87 to £20 million—a very substantial increase. The College of Health of my noble friend Lord Young of Dartington suggested £30 million. However, broadly we are in or on the threshold of a realistic level of expenditure. Even so, it is only if this campaign is properly backed up by the necessary services that it can achieve its full potential.
While still in the area of prevention, there is one sensitive issue on which I want to touch. Have the Government made up their mind about the recommendation of the McClelland report that clean needles and syringes should be issued to drug addicts on a new for old basis? I am aware of the objections, but we must rank our priorities. The Government say that there is very little spread into the heterosexual community so far. But we have to remember that addicted prostitutes are a major bridge into the community at large. Chilling evidence of this was provided by the ITN programme of 2nd December on prostitution in Edinburgh, which some of your Lordships may have seen. Naturally we hope that behaviour will change, but history offers no grounds for expecting it to change overnight. And it is likely to be slower among certain alienated and fringe groups. Perhaps the noble Baroness will be able to make an announcement about this tonight, or perhaps we shall have to wait for the Secretary of State's return from Amsterdam where this has been brought into practice.
1194
Either way, I hope that the Government will take the plunge.
I come now to the main problems confronting the National Health Service. First, there are those coming right up the track that will stem directly from the Government's publicity campaign. The voluntary demand for testing has already increased fourfold in some hospitals. After 23 million leaflets have gone through letterboxes, backed by television advertisements, this may well quadruple again, imposing a terrible strain on sexually transmitted disease clinics and voluntary bodies already working to capacity. I must therefore ask the noble Baroness what measures are in hand to meet this demand. It will severely vitiate the effects of the campaign if people coming in for testing or counselling are turned away; this could drive some people to despair and tip others back into the very anti-social behaviour that the campaign is designed to prevent.
Then there are the built-in demands that the system will face over the next five years or so and that it would still face if a vaccine were discovered tomorrow. There have been various estimates of carriers and potential cases. The surest guide is almost certainly the approximate doubling of patient numbers every year. Taking 600 cases this year, a simple geometrical progression gives us nearly 10,000 cases in 1990 and nearly 20,000 in 1991. The most reliable estimate of the cost to the NHS of an AIDS patient from presentation to death, based on a study of 40 cases by Mr. Malcolm Rees, is £18,000. Therefore, 20,000 cases would represent an NHS cost of £360 million compared to only £4.5 million attributable to the current year. These figures, which are not based on the most alarmist projections, indicate the scale of the problem confronting the NHS.
As regards human resources AIDS care, treatment and counselling are extremely labour-intensive. Training of new staff is, therefore, essential; otherwise, the dedicated teams that have been in the front line for several years with the same personnel are simply going to burn out.
It is also vital, on humane and financial grounds, that facilities should match the phases of the disease. Much of the treatment could take place in outpatient clinics with day beds to relieve the pressure on acute beds. In order to equip such a clinic, St. Stephens, Fulham, needs only £150,000 to top up a charitable gift of £500,000 and thereafter just under £200,000 a year revenue costs. I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to tell us that this will be approved.
St. Mary's Paddington, needs to increase seven or eight AIDS beds to 20, but not at the expense of other provision in the hospital. St. Mary's "path lab" may be crippled by a threatened cut of a few thousand pounds as part of the district squeeze. Surely, that would be folly. These relatively small demands, if not met, will cause great strains, and will soon be very much magnified. It is therefore vital to get a proper funding mechanism in place. I will return to that at the end of my speech.
I turn to voluntary bodies. Representing as they do the spontaneous reaction of society to this terrible disease, they clearly deserve, and must have, our support. I will not go into much detail because my noble friend Lord Young of Dartington is much more

1195
knowledgeable in this field. His college of health runs a healthline that includes AIDS information. The development of a hospice movement will clearly be important to relieve pressure on hospitals as the disease spreads. This is best done under non-governmental auspices, but it may need some government help. Perhaps the noble Baroness will say something about that.
The Terence Higgins Trust, which is running on only £300,000 a year, including a grant of £100,000 from the noble Baroness's department, desperately needs funds to move from its present warehouse warren to a place with a walk-in area and more space for information and live counselling. It has 300 volunteers on its books whom it cannot begin to deploy in present circumstances. It provides domiciliary care to about 100 patients, thus freeing hospital beds, and this number will clearly rise.
It is also the base of an extremely impressive flying squad called Frontliners, composed of AIDS victims who are still well enough and brave enough to succour their housebound fellow sufferers. The morality of our age is often denounced, but there is another side of the coin. Some truly admirable acts of mutual help have come to light among the worst afflicted. I, for one, should like to pay tribute to them. All is not doom and gloom on the moral front.
Before leaving current sufferers, may I raise the question of social security with the noble Baroness. There is no special benefit to AIDS victims who, like those with terminal cancer, notice the cold more and require special diets. Also, permanent doses of antibiotics devitaminise the body and may require up to £10 a week of vitamin supplements, while heavy sweats may require frequent changes of bed linen and clothing leading to high laundry bills. A single person's sickness benefit of £29 a week even when brought up to £38 or so by heating and laundry allowances is not much to get by on in these appalling circumstances. Will the noble Baroness look into this?
The Motion also embraces research. This is the third leg of my tripod. The present AIDS-related sums funded by the Medical Research Council are extremely modest—£1.5 million on 15 projects over two to three years, of which health departments have provided £300,000 entirely for epidemiology. Of course, the MRC is not the only—or even the largest—source of research funds, but it is almost certainly the best lead body for the AIDS epidemic. There is a strong case for its commissioning research in this field rather than just waiting for applications. It has been claimed that no worthwhile AIDS projects have been turned down, but there are other views on this.
When pressed on this precise point at Question Time on 4th December, the Foreign Secretary, Sir Geoffrey Howe—and I took down his words—said,
"Have we got the right people in the right places where the money can be spent?".
He then added that if anyone could help to identify them, the sums were relatively small and there should be no difficulty. I welcome that, because identification is not difficult.
There are two essential points to make. First, we enjoy specially fertile conditions arising from the
1196
interface between academic medicine and the NHS, which we debated in your Lordships' House only the other day, and whose underfunding some of us sharply criticised then. This is peculiar to this country and offers unique opportunities for clinical research; that is, unless our excellent cadre of clinical scientists simply caves in under the strain of overwork and shortage of funds. Inspirationally-led teams are in danger of dispersal. That would be little less than a tragedy under the current circumstances.
Secondly, the easy-going notion that we can just leave it to the Americans is just not on. America tends to throw money at repetitive research; our research productivity, on a far lower budget, is very high. There are outstanding British achievements already in the AIDS field. It was precisely because of the quality of our basic research in molecular biology that we were able to develop an anti-body test in the fantastically short time of only one-and-a-half years after the discovery of the virus by the French. That is the sort of achievement, including a possible prototype vaccine, that we are putting in jeopardy by the Government's general policy of attrition of research funds by 2 per cent. per annum.
This is cutting off our nose to spite our face. It is one of the things that we are good at. If the Foreign Secretary, or any other member of the Government, were to talk to Professor Jarrett of Edinburgh, Professor Boyd of Manchester, Professors Weiss and Tedder, or Doctors Farthing and Pinching, here in London, I think that he would be left in no doubt that we have—so far—the right people in the right places and that a relatively small injection of money, by international standards, could be crucial in a field in which we excel.
There are many other important AIDS-related topics such as housing, employment and schools on which I have not touched and which time does not allow me to touch, but I am sure that other noble Lords will speak about them during the course of this debate.
In conclusion, I come to my main point, which is that we urgently need a national strategic plan in which money and method must go hand in hand. The Secretary of State has asked all health authorities to submit their plans for dealing with AIDS by the end of this month, but their plans in the final analysis must depend very largely on his; that is to say, on the Government's. He must reassure them that AIDS funding will not simply be sliced out of the main National Health Service budget, because that would set colleague against colleague and department against department and could lead to a rising tide of public resentment as other services were adversely affected. It must be new money.
I therefore propose something like this. The DHSS should certainly remain the lead department. Its AIDS unit should become the national command post. To avoid mismatch (which has occurred) between top-down allocation and evolving health authority needs, district authorities' bids should be fed directly into the AIDS unit, whose responses should be geared to the national strategic plan, which does not yet exist though elements of it are there in embryo.
How would this plan be agreed and how would it work? It would be negotiated by the Secretary of State

1197
for Social Services with the Cabinet on the advice of a national aids council constituted from elements of the chief medical officer's present advisory committee supplemented by the royal colleges, the MRC and health economists, presided over, I suggest, by the Minister of Health. Its main job would he to recommend, on the basis of all the national and international facts, the level of AIDS-related public expenditure on a medium-term basis of not less than three years. That should be outside the RAWP formula. After approval or amendment at Cabinet level, it would be the task of the administrative arm of the AIDS unit to see that the relevant sums were dispatched direct to destination and applied as intended.
One sub-committee of the council drawn from the MRC working party, clinical academics and industry should recommend the level of government-funded AIDS-related research; another sub-committee could deal with the needs of voluntary bodies, possibly in liaison with a new fund-raising charity. It may well be possible to devise a better model, a better perspective, from inside government; or possibly other noble Lords—and I am thinking of the noble Lord, Lord Hunter of Newington, with his great experience—may be able to suggest a better model than mine. What I am saying is that some such system is essential; otherwise we shall always be catching up and never be ahead of this deadly game.
On next year's funding, I do not want to be dogmatic. Allowing for increased NHS revenue and capital costs and some additional sums for research and voluntary bodies (and including the £20 million pledged by the Secretary of State), my guess is that we are looking at some £60 million. As to the future, I believe that the right levels will emerge from the kind of framework I am suggesting because we shall be asking the right questions and getting nearer, with experience, to the right answers.
Finally, if we really activate all the strengths of our National Health Service, the skills of research establishments, the commitment of our voluntary bodies and the commonsense morality of the British people, I believe that we can avert catastrophe. But we need all these interlocking elements if we are to win. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
6.4 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, this is a highly emotional subject, and of course rightly so because unless we arouse people's feelings and interest to the extent that is necessary we shall not have the disease contained and people in general sufficiently aware of the need to take precautions. HIV—human immuno-deficiency virus infection—includes AIDS. The word "AIDS" is applied when it becomes the full-blown disease, and at that stage 90 per cent. of people affected die within three years. But there is a much larger number of people who are carriers, known or not known—people who are infected with this virus.
As the noble Lord mentioned, the number of cases has doubled every year since 1983. Half of the cases in the United Kingdom are in the north-west Thames region in London. The Praed Street clinic, which again
1198
has been referred to, operates an open door technique and it has always been famous for the excellent care it has given to patients with sexually-transmitted diseases. People go there because of the anonymity and availability of the service.
In fairness to the DHSS, I must say that they have made additional funds available there. In this year alone they gave an extra £500,000 through the region, so it is not that they have been expected to provide all the service without any help. There is of course a great need for the future to assess what is going to be needed from here on, and there is a case before that district health authority this very day to consider the various aspects of this matter.
The publicity given so far has been so successful that there has been an enormous increase in the number of people presenting themselves for screening just in the last month since these campaigns started. Of the 1,285 cases screened between October 1985 and 1986, 191 were antibody positive; that is, one for every seven cases tested. In October 1986 alone, 297 people applied for screening. That is the equivalent of 22 per cent of the number in the previous year in that one month. In the first two weeks of November 220 more came and asked for screening.
Of the 700 screened in the period from June to October 1986 there were only 11 per cent. positive cases; and indeed there has been no increase in the number. The number of positive cases has remained fairly constant. That is because as more and more people come there are more and more in the low-risk categories and therefore the good news is that the proportion is not increasing; but of course it is to everyone's advantage to discover, if possible, the cases which are the carriers.
The service is under great stress now, and there will be a need for more health advisers, research workers, contact tracers and support staff. All those categories will be needed if the new publicity campaign that we are going to see creates a great explosion. It is important to give people an awareness but not to create a great fear. That is a worry at the present time. A lot of people are quite unnecessarily frightened. I have heard of mothers whose children have picked up a toy somewhere. If such a child has blown a toy whistle someone has said, "Put that down. You will catch AIDS". That is a total misunderstanding of the way this disease is transmitted.
As a practising dentist I must say that we are very much at risk in this matter. People have a worry that they may go to the dentist and pick up AIDS. There is no known case yet where it has ever been transmitted through a dental surgery. There is no known case either of any dentist who has contracted it. Nevertheless, there has been a workshop of the dental health and science committee of the British Dental Association which has considered cross-infection in dentistry. It was originally set up because of hepatitis B, which is course of much greater risk to dentists but at least one can be immunised against it.
However, the Committee recommends that there should be comprehensive sterilisation in the surgery for all equipment used, and that all equipment should be sterilised between patients. Of course there are costs involved. An autoclave costs a minimum of £1,200,

1199
and because you need a lot of additional items of instruments and other equipment there is going to be expenditure of, say, £4,000 to provide adequate sterilisation.
Gloves are recommended for dentists to wear. Yesterday I saw a report in The Times saying that dentists should wear gloves, a mask and goggles. I thought "Heavens, people are frightened enough of a dentist already. Just imagine the reaction if you went in and got confronted by that." My research today—and I have spoken to all the experts on this matter in dentistry—indicates that goggles and a mouth mask are really not necessary, though some dentists may like to use them in a known case or in a advanced case.
On the subject of general hygiene, many members of the public do not know that bleach is a very effective disinfectant. A solution of one in ten household bleach will kill an AIDS virus, because it is a very low grade virus and is easily dealt with in that way. But not all materials can be treated with bleach. The woman who is at home and is very worried about her kitchen counter would be helped by knowing that just an ordinary household bleach solution used to wipe that bench and left in position would do that much good. The situation with dentists is to use good techniques, to sterilise and cleanse and to use disposable needles. I was interested to hear that 40 per cent. of the injuries to dentists through pricking themselves is because they are trying to put the cover back on a needle to keep it safe for someone else. I am pleased to see that needles are now being developed which will retract into the syringe after they have been used. That will be marvellous for all forms of disposal and a great protection to people.
The DHSS has played an important part in sending circulars round to all the dentists. There has been guidance from the chief dental officer on these precautions and postgraduate courses have been set up for general dental practitioners so that they can be brought right up to date with the techniques that are necessary. Instructions have been issued to family practitioner committees to check that good sterilisation procedures are being carried out in dental surgeries.
The message to go out from dentistry is that patients should not be concerned. If they are concerned they should ask the dentist and satisfy themselves that good techniques are being used. They should not put off necessary dental treatment simply because they are afraid as a result of rumours they have heard which are not based on fact. The only good thing that might come out of this terrible disease, which is such a scourge on our society, is the thought that the attention of the whole world is concentrated on trying to find a cure and a solution. With the resources that are being devoted throughout the world perhaps we may find that the researches solve more than just this disease. They may find the answers to other diseases that have troubled the world for so long. Let us hope so.
6.3 p.m.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: My Lords, I am sure we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, for enabling us to have this debate. I was glad to hear the way in which he introduced it and I am grateful to him
1200
for it. I am also very pleased to be following the noble Baroness, with whose speech I agreed very much.
AIDS is a worldwide problem. In this country by the end of October 1986, 548 cases of AIDS had been reported to our Communicable Diseases Surveillance Centre. Of those 278 have died. As we have been told, the number of cases doubles about every nine to 10 months. It is estimated that there will be 1,300 patients in 1987 and 3,000 in 1988. It is likely that 30,000 individuals may have been infected with the AIDS virus. It is estimated that 30 per cent. may—the word is "may"—go on to develop the full pattern of the illness that is AIDS. But as there is no known maximum possible incubation period before the disease becomes apparent this percentage may increase.
Even if further transmission of the virus were to stop forthwith, there would still be thousands of cases within the next few years. We know that many others will suffer from dementia, as the virus attacks the central nervous system. If you are infected with the virus, you can infect others for the rest of your life. Some time later, four weeks to a year, you can develop antibodies and you may—the word is still "may"—go on to develop the full AIDS pattern of illness in which diseases such as pneumonia may be fatal.
Although all these people in the UK are already infected with the AIDS virus—so there will be several thousand sufferers over the next few years—we are faced with a challenge which we can meet. It is not yet too late to prevent the spread of AIDS into the general population of this country. AIDS is not the plague that it is often made out to be. I was glad to hear the noble Baroness speak the way she did, because she reminded the House that the virus is easily destroyed by bleach or by heating to above 90 degrees for 10 minutes.
AIDS is not spread through the air, by coughs and sneezes, nor indeed through food or water. It is safe to eat food prepared by infected individuals, to share most washing, eating and drinking utentils or toilet facilities and to live with infected individuals, provided sexual contact is avoided. Sharing toothbrushes. razors or other items likely to become contaminated with blood may be a source of risk, though, as the noble Baroness had told us, so far no one is known to have become infected by this route. The AIDS virus is only spread through sexual contact, infected blood or from mother to unborn child. This allows great scope for the control of the spread of infection.
Since the advent of AIDS into this country there has been a marked decline in sexually transmitted diseases among homosexuals, suggesting that they have changed their habits. This suggests that a really concerted effort at health education, using the best expertise and all forms of the media, could be effective in slowing the spread of infection in this country. I am glad that the Government have provided additional resources for this, but the campaign should be long, hard and intensive. Resources greater than the £20 million so far suggested will be required.
Health education is vital and should explicitly describe the way in which AIDS is transmitted and how it can be avoided. However, if we are to persuade our young people that we really mean it, something

1201
more than mere advertisement is needed. We should reinforce the health education message by making condoms widely available at the places and times where sexually active young people meet. For people who inject drugs it is not enough just to say "Always use a clean needle". We must provide the clean needle.
But we must do more than that. We must make it very much easier for drug addicts to receive treatment and very early in their treatment they must be persuaded to stop injecting. This involves a tremendous increase in drug rehabilitation clinics so that drug addicts can walk into one and be accepted for treatment, just as they can a VD clinic. Active treatment of drug addicts must be regarded as an important part of the campaign against the spread of AIDS. The Government must take this on board.
There are grounds for hope. Thanks to remarkable developments in the sciences of immunology and molecular biology during the last 20 years or so, the cause of AIDS was identified extremely quickly after the first cases appeared among homosexuals in America. We now know far more about the virus that causes AIDS and how it attacks the body than we have ever known about any other disease at a comparable stage in its history. A new drug called AZT is being tested. It does not cure AIDS but it may help to slow the progression of the disease. Currently scientists are working towards a vaccine to prevent AIDS. While we should not expect this vaccine to be available for a few years at least, the more support and resources we provide for research the sooner we shall be able to prevent and treat this dreadful disease. I could not agree more with what the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock. had to say.
The Government must increase resources not only for the MRC but also for the pharmaceutical industry, for it is the pharmaceutical industry that is most likely to help us by providing a drug which will destroy the virus, slow its activity, enable the immune system to overcome it or strengthen the immune system. We must always remember that it was through the arsenicals, and later penicillin, that we conquered syphilis. Success in the fight againt AIDS requires the co-operation of the groups most at risk and we must not alienate them by blaming them, by imposing upon them moral views they do not share or by isolating or discriminating against them.
Because AIDS cannot be transmitted through ordinary forms of contact, there is no medical reason to restrict the rights of sufferers or infected individuals. Because of the nature of AIDS and the available methods of testing for infection, screening and isolation would not be effective in controlling it. We must not spend our time going down that road. Finally, we must be prepared to take care of those who are affected and we must show them the standards of care and compassion that all ill people have a right to expect.
At different stages of the illness they have different needs. Full in-patient treatment in a general acute hospital is needed during episodes of acute illness, but in the later stages of the disease sensitive nursing in a peaceful home or hospice environment is more appropriate. All this requires money. As the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, said, it may cost about
1202
£18,000—or, as is the estimate given to me, about £20,000—per patient spread over two years.
What we want is for the Government to make sure that resources are available. That is very much part of their job. I hope that when the Minister replies she will be able to assure the House that the Government are fully alive to their obligations and will provide the necessary resources to enable the community to withstand this challenge successfully. The point is that we can successfully overcome this challenge if we pursue it in the right way and with the requisite amount of vigour. I hope that we shall do so.
6.23 p.m.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, in the earlier short debate today which I had the honour of opening the noble Lord, Lord Pitt of Hampstead, apologised to your Lordships and to me for not having been here to hear my speech. He will realise that I have had no opportunity of avoiding hearing his speech since I had to speak immediately afterwards. But he may like to know that I listened to it with very great care and I agree wholeheartedly with his concluding remarks.
I think that the first debate we had in your Lordships' House on this subject was on 18th March—that is, about 21 months ago—initiated by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox. It was a most interesting debate. At that time I think that I asked some eight or nine questions and looking back at them I find that only about three so far have been finally and clearly answered, which shows that we still have much to learn.
At that time I told the Government spokesman who answered the debate that I thought that one of the most urgent requirements was to convince the British public that this was not a disease which exclusively affected the homosexual population. I am bound to say that we have not yet succeeded in that task. There are still people who think that this is a disease that affects homosexuals and homosexuals alone. Of course we know that it affects haemophiliacs and we know that of one class of patients suffering from haemophilia 50 per cent. are now infected with AIDS; a tragic figure. We also know that babies are born with AIDS. Mainly these are babies born to parents who are intravenous drug addicts. We know that too, and I do not think that anybody suggests that these babies are homosexuals or anything of the kind.
The important lesson to get over is that the disease is a disease and that it is very important indeed that the whole British public should understand fully how it is transmitted. When they understand that, we are in with a chance perhaps of conquering it. Much of the earlier work done for the public in regard to this disease was done by members of the Terrence Higgins Trust. I say this not as a criticism of that trust, which has done marvellous work, but it was set up as a result of the tragic death of a homosexual youth, and that tended to reinforce the belief in the public mind that this was exclusively a problem for homosexual people. It is not.
Having mentioned the Terrence Higgins Trust, to which we should all be grateful, let me say that counselling both of sufferers and of friends and relations of sufferers is crucial in this area. Most of the

1203
early counselling was provided at very considerable personal cost by members of the trust. Counselling is not just a matter of being sympathetic, and saying kind words and listening; it is a highly skilled, professional craft. If people are counselling patients in this desperate condition they themselves are exposed to serious dangers of psychological trauma. A counsellor is attached to one patient and develops a relationship with that patient. In the fullness of time the patient dies—and these patients all die; I know that we all die but they die sooner—and the counsellor goes to another patient, establishes another relationship and then that patient dies.
That is not a satisfactory situation. I mention it merely to say that there is a desperate need for more professionally trained counsellors in this field. Had she been here, I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, would have echoed that. I think that the requirement is for training and for investment. It also requires a certain amount of government action to provide the necessary skills and professional expertise for counselling.
I now come to the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, with whom I always agree profoundly because she is at the grass roots of some medical matters. What she said about screening was very important indeed. A lot has been said about screening. It has been suggested in your Lordships' House that everybody coming to this country should be screened and tested. About 6 million visitors come to Britain every year. It takes about three months to get a result from a blood test. What do you do in the interval? Do you put them all in hotels near Heathrow and then wait for three months? And when you have the answer, what do you do then? You can do nothing at all. Perhaps you can send some away. The same applies to screening the whole population here. It would consume a massive amount of resources, resources which are already in scarce supply.
Having screened people and obtained the answers. what do you do? We are in the sad situation that we can do nothing except to tell people that they are infected or they are not infected. Let us look at screening not as a measure whereby if we screen everybody suddenly we know whether or not we are all right. What are we to do? Are we to have them all coloured blue, red or some other hue as being the people with the wrong blood test result? It is not a practical proposal at all. I ask noble Lords to remember that.
My noble friend Lord Kilmarnock, in his excellent opening speech, concentrated very much on research. How right he is. I should like to say a few words about that. Certainly we all hope that some day there will be a vaccine that will provide protection against this desperate disease. But it takes very many years indeed to pioneer and develop a protective vaccine and I do not see the possibility of one being available for at least 15 years. If one is available then, splendid! The answer is to develop a specific and effective therapeutic agent as rapidly as possible. It is in that field that more research needs to be carried out.
We have in Britain perhaps the leading virologists in the world. We also have a situation at the moment where most of the clinical work in looking after AIDS
1204
patients is being done by members of university academic staff, clinical teachers. The people who ought to be doing the research do not have the time. They are busy dealing with the patients, because the resources for dealing with them are not there. The research is being left to the Americans. I am not saying that they will not do it properly; they might do it as well as we could. One of my fears is that some of our brightest research workers in this field may decide to go over to America and perhaps work there, where they have better resources and better opportunities to carry out the research work. This point was referred to in a debate only very recently with regard to the crisis over academic clinical staff.
Let me come quickly to one other point; I shall be as quick as I can. I am not one for censuring television. I am not one of Mrs. Whitehouse's gang. I do not like violence on television and I always switch it off; but I am not in favour of censorship. However, I believe that fictional television has some effect and it sets an example. I find that now in a television fictional series if ever a man meets a woman you can guarantee they will be in bed together in no time at all; similarly, if a boy meets a girl it is suggested somehow that casual sex and promiscuity are the norm.
They were not the norm in my young days, even for me, and I was not one for following the rules! I do not honestly think that they are the norm today, but I believe that in fictional series in particular an example can be set. If we all agree, and I think that we do, that we should set an example in regard to smoking, that characters in fictional series should not smoke and that there should be less smoking, perhaps on television there should be less of something which rhymes with "smoking", although I shall not actually say what it is.
Let me refer briefly to one other point. This has been an interesting short debate. The Alliance, which is two parties, is allowed three days on which to choose the subjects for debate. Divide three into two and you get one and a half; and so today on two very important subjects—first housing and now AIDS—we have two short debates. If the Alliance had four days instead of three, your Lordships would have had a full day's debate on housing and you would now have a full day's debate on AIDS—and both warrant that.
6.32 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Birmingham: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, for introducing this timely debate. I should like to say how much I agree with him that we must not be moralistic about those who may unfortunately already have the AIDS virus. The noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, has just given us a very grim picture about research. That is all the more reason to ask that research should be co-ordinated internationally, if possible. It seems to me that this is a worldwide disease. I read the World Health Organisation's forecast and it seems that there will be 100 million people infected with this virus by 1988. It seems to me that if ever there was a case for international co-operation, it is here.
I am sure there will be a general welcome for the publicity that the Government are giving to the dangers of AIDS. Most AIDS cases, as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, would agree, actually

1205
come from sexual transmission. However, I wonder whether the present advertisements are explicit enough. What is needed is clear language; words which ordinary people understand and use. I confess to being a little disappointed by what I have seen so far. It seems to me it is better to be explicit than to cause death by failing to convey a warning crudely enough. I should like to think that Her Majesty's Government would call on young people's magazines to co-operate here. Also, I should like public advertisements to be oriented towards those carriers of the AIDS virus who have not developed the disease. Surely, they are the people who are most dangerous and who have a special obligation not to pass it on to others.
I spoke at some length on this subject when we were debating the Address on the gracious Speech. Obviously I do not want to repeat myself but I feel that I must again enter a call for chastity as the only safe way of avoiding AIDS, transmitted through sexual intercourse. By "chastity" I refer to abstinence from all immoral sexual intercourse, to chastity before, during and outside marriage and, so far as homosexuals are concerned, either to sexual abstinence or, if thought right, to exclusive loyalty to a single partner.
I do not think it is impossible to bring about a fundamental change in lifestyle in this matter if we have the co-operation of the mass media that the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, has indicated we need. Condoms, which feature in Government publicity, no doubt have a place for people who will not adhere to this standard. There seems to be no objection to continuing the provision of free condoms, providing it is done in a way and in places that would not encourage their use in a promiscuous way. However, it is a fact that condoms are not totally effective. They are not totally effective as contraceptives, and they will not be totally effective in preventing AIDS. Also, publicity for condoms does not guarantee their use. The "safer sex" campaign in the United States did not raise the profits last year of the best-known company which manufactures condoms. I could wish that Government publicity would focus less on condoms and more on chastity—not for moralistic reasons, but as the only really safe way of avoiding AIDS.
I hope that the Government will make facilities much more easily available for anyone wanting a test for antibodies against the AIDS virus. An increasing number of worried people want tests. They want results very quickly. And that is now possible, with certain new techniques. However, it takes some months before the antibodies develop. So a negative result does not guarantee freedom from infection. People who find that they have a positive result need counselling—not only those who actually have AIDS but those who suddenly find that they are positive following a test. This ought to be available both before and after a test. The Government should make sufficient money available for the training and employment of a sufficient number of counsellors to deal not only with those who actually have the syndrome but also with those who wish to be tested—both before and after the test—to see whether they have the virus.
1206
Since AIDS is not caught in the normal way of infectious diseases, the possession of a positive test surely ought not to be a notifiable disease. This might deter some people from coming forward for the test. The test should not be compulsory for all, as argued by previous speakers. That would be quite impracticable. For the same reason—this seems to me very important—there should be no discrimination against those who are positive but who have not developed the disease and who are not infectious in the normal way. Furthermore, the results of a test should be totally confidential to the person concerned, since communication to others might affect reputation or career. The noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, has already pointed out how absolutely impracticable it is to test everybody who enters this country or who returns from abroad. In any case, the test might not show the actual state.
As for the care of those who already have the disease, the Board for Social Responsibility of the Church of England has issued a little pamphlet, simply called AIDS, of which very large numbers have already been sold. It explains what it is actually like to find that you have been afflicted with this killer disease and it makes helpful suggestions about the needs of such a person. It also deals with the terrible difficulties faced by family, friends and sexual partners, who suddenly wake up to what has happened. Equal difficulties, already touched upon, are encountered by medical staff and indeed by clergy who minister to such people. The pamphlet gives practical advice to those who nurse AIDS patients at home, and it also gives advice about hospital care.
Incidentally, hospices have been mentioned. I gather that not all of them are willing to take AIDS patients. I think that they should be persuaded to take at least some. It may be necessary to open new hospices with part government funding. I believe that the churches ought to take some kind of initiative here, although I must confess to your Lordships that I do not know exactly how they would do it. People really do need pastoral care; those suffering from AIDS, and especially those who are dying. I hope that this booklet may be a help. Of course I gladly acknowledge the other agencies that are making a large contribution, and especially the Terrence Higgins Trust. I am glad that somebody else has asked that its grant should he increased, because it is under tremendous pressure.
6.39 p.m.
Lord Colwyn: My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend the right reverend Prelate. I agree with most of his remarks this evening. He was widely quoted during a debate in the other place, and I am sure he will be quoted again after our debate this evening.
I know that this is not the first time we have discussed the problem of the Acquired Immunity Deficiency Syndrome, and there is no doubt it will be a subject for debate here for many years to come. I am sorry that owing to the extreme pressure of my daytime work at this time of year I have not had as much time as I should have liked to enable me to work on a more interesting contribution to our debate this evening. In the debate in another place on 21st November there was no mention of a dental

1207
connection. This evening, 12 per cent. of the speakers are dentists. I therefore hope that I shall not repeat too much of what has been said by my noble friend Lady Gardner.
As your Lordships will know, it is inevitable that I have a personal interest in the progress of this epidemic. Like my noble friend, I practise as a dental surgeon. I use normal dental techniques and I also use some techniques from alternative therapies. The acceptance of the fact that there are now about 30,000 people in this country who are infected with the HVI virus leads to the projection that about one million people will be infected by 1990. This increase, along with a similar increase in the incidence of hepatitis B, enables the calculation to be made that general dental practitioners in the United Kingdom could now be treating approximately 250 carriers a day. In the majority of cases, these carriers will not have been identified. The growth in the number of carriers of hepatitis B virus, non-A, non-B hepatitis virus and HVI virus is such that as many of 10 per cent. of the population might be affected by one of these in the foreseeable future. Members of my profession will be treating positive patients every day where neither the dentist nor the patient will be aware of the condition.
It follows from this that new standards are required, including full case histories, safe sterilisation and surgery hygiene routines which will prevent cross-infection. In view of the inevitable shortage of resources, I believe the Government are doing as much as can be expected at this stage. However, I do have some questions for my noble friend the Minister a little later in my remarks.
In April 1986 all medical and dental practitioners were sent a letter from their respective chief officers with a document of guidance for dealing with patients infected with HVI. This guidance was very comprehensive, although (as my noble friend Lady Gardner has said) perhaps it was not very practical with its advice. I should hope that, in view of the escalating costs of this sort of change to our surgery routine, the Minister will be able to confirm that any extra costs arising from recommended procedures for routine practice will he taken into account by the Dental Rates Study Group calculation of expenses, and that it will also be realised that the treatment of patients known to be carriers of HBV and HVI will involve the dental practitioner in extra time as well as expense which will have to be considered when the General Dental Services Committee discusses with the DHSS the basis on which fees are calculated.
It should be pointed out that in this country there has not yet been any recorded incident of dental treatment being the cause of any patient becoming a carrier of the virus; nor has any dental surgeon caught the disease or become a carrier. I have a copy of the latest CDR report containing details of the cases of AIDS reported in the United Kingdom up to the end of October. It contains a follow-up survey of health service staff who have been exposed to HVI infection and it includes a substantial number who have sustained needlestick injuries. With one very unusual exception, no seroconversions have been observed. A similar study in the USA, reported in the Weekly Epidemiological Record of the World Health Organisation, followed up a serological study of 1,758
1208
health care staff where only 26 persons or 1·5 per cent. were found to have HVI antibody in their blood. But of these, 23 were in a high risk group.
I can also confirm that there have been no known cases of patients who become infected after acupuncture treatments; nor are there any cases of acupuncture therapists contracting the virus. As with dental practice, all acupuncturists are considered to be irresponsible and negligent if they do not either use disposable needles or effectively sterilise their instruments. I know that they would be quite happy to see legislation to make this compulsory.
Perhaps I may mention that I myself have started using acupuncture. I am learning this at the International Society of Biophysical Medicine in Liverpool, which has set up one of this country's foremost centres for the treatment of heroin addiction. It is opening a clinic in Glasgow and will soon be opening one in London. Owing to the high-risk nature of their patients, they are teaching the use of and using stimulation with electrodes rather than needles. Some of your Lordships will have attended a presentation which I organised with the society a year ago in the House of Commons and will be pleased to hear that their splendid results are continuing.
There are alternative treatments for AIDS which basically involve the stimulation of the patient's immune system and of the affected T-lymphocytes. Whether this is done by acupuncture, homoeopathy, oesteopathy or other means, I should like to ask the Minister (knowing of her interest in alternative therapies) whether her department has made any assessment and given any consideration to this form of treatment.
I have here a letter from an AIDS sufferer. I hope your Lordships will permit me to read a few sentences.
"I was diagnosed as suffering from AIDS a year ago during a severe attack of TB which very nearly killed me. I stopped allopathic treatment halfway through, and the TB has been successfully controlled by my homoeopath. I now refuse to take allopathic medicine in any form, although I am going for check-ups at St. Mary's clinic.
"The TB quickly followed by the appearance of Kaposi's sarcoma which I have inside and outside, particularly in the lungs. The Kaposi's sarcoma in the lungs impedes the correct flow between oxygen and blood, and I have ordinary infections as a result.
"Some two or three months ago I sought acupuncture and Chinese herbal treatment, which seems to he giving good results. I also visit an osteopath once a week.
"My last check-up at St. Mary's was on Thursday, 27th November, and the doctor said that I had not deteriorated as much as he had expected, and that on the strength of these encouraging signs I would wish to continue my therapies.
"The reason why I am writing to you is because I am finding it impossible to cover the expense of these treatments as my pension allows me only £49.50 per week. I would he very grateful indeed if you could be of any help in assisting the cost of my therapies, particularly in view of the very promising progress I have made so far".
As we are going to hear this sort of depressing story more and more often, can the Minister offer any encouragement to AIDS sufferers who find relief through the natural therapies? Is she prepared to offer financial help to all sufferers from AIDS so that they can take advantage of any treatment that may be able to alleviate their physical distress and prolong their lives?
In conclusion, I believe that your Lordships will see that there must be a change in standards. Routine

1209
procedures for sterilisation and surgery hygiene must be adequate to prevent cross-infection. These procedures will include the use of operating gloves, comprehensive decontamination and sterilisation of equipment and instruments, burrs and hand pieces being autoclaved between patients and a maximum use of disposables. On no account may needles or anaesthetic cartridges be used for more than one patient. It may well be that some practices already meet these standards, but it is more than likely that a substantial number do not.
I am able to tell your Lordships that the BDA are continuing their campaign to persuade the profession to take this matter seriously. At the same time they are becoming fearful of the impact of AIDS on the population at large. There are reports of patients who are cancelling their appointments because they are not sure that dental treatment is safe. The problem is likely to increase following the Governments' distribution of the AIDS leaflet to all households next year.
As dentists, we must consider how best to reassure the public. That is a matter of urgency. However, such reassurances will be ineffective unless all dentists are thorough in their procedures to prevent cross-infection and are seen to be thorough in doing things properly. Clearly we require from the Government and from the DHSS support which must include recognition of the extra costs which dentists will face and support for their efforts to reassure the public.
Lord Parry: My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, sits down after his extremely helpful speech, may I ask one question? Would it not be possible for practitioners and surgeons, whether in dentistry or general physiology, to sample the blood of patients after each operation so that a bank of information about the presence of the virus is built up?
Several Noble Lords: Order!
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, may I say that if I do not start at three minutes to seven, I shall not have 20 minutes to speak and I shall not have a hope of answering your Lordships' questions?
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, surely the noble Baroness means three minutes to eight.
Lord Parry: My Lords, surely the House is free to ask questions in a debate of this order.
Baroness Trumpington: No, my Lords.
6.50 p.m.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, I was very worried when the noble Baroness spoke about having to rise to reply to the debate at three minutes to seven because that would have abbreviated my remarks considerably.
Like all noble Lords who have spoken in the debate, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, for tabling this Motion and I know that all noble Lords are fully aware of the terrible threat posed by this disease, no one more so than I am. If my remarks today are critical of the Government it is only because I am
1210
convinced that their campaign in this grievous matter is wholly misguided and erroneous, and I hope they may he persuaded to put it right.
The campaign's whole thrust is epitomised by the words that are used so prominently all the time: "AIDS is not prejudiced". Those words are designed to indicate that everyone is at risk and almost equally at risk. That is the linchpin of the campaign yet it simply is not true. I exclude from all my remarks the dangers posed to haemophiliacs and drug addicts. I am concerned here with sexual transmission.
Large sections of the community are in fact at absolutely no risk at all. Those who have never been sexually active, whether because they are too young, because they are indifferent to sex or because sex has never been available to them, are at no risk at all. Those whose sexual activity has been confined to kissing or masturbation, whether mutual masturbation, group masturbation or individual masturbation, are at no risk at all. Those whose sexual practices fall short of anal or vaginal penetration are at exceedingly low risk. Couples who have no other partner are not at risk. In all those cases AIDS is totally prejudiced in their favour, to use the catchy phrase employed by the ad-men responsible. The people embraced by those categories probably represent over half the population.
On the other hand, AIDS is highly prejudiced against other categories. In saying that it is strongly prejudiced against homosexuals I must add that I am not. I find it extremely unfair that they should happen to be so susceptible, but my sympathy for them must not divert me from the truth. The truth must be given, and that the Government do not appear to have done. Of some 600 fully-blown cases in the United Kingdom, only four have resulted from heterosexual intercourse, even though there are many times more heterosexuals than there are homosexuals. We have to ask why.
The first reason is that homosexuals in general are much more promiscuous, sometimes compulsorily promiscuous. Secondly, sodomy happens to be the sexual practice through which infection is most likely of all to take place. I could go into details but I do not intend to do so. The risk is at its very highest if unhealed lesions in the anus have been caused through frequent, violent penetration. If the so-called submissive partner allows anal ejaculation when he has these lesions it is very close to suicide, especially if he is promiscuous; and yet this is commonplace.
Many homosexuals know all this, but, again, many do not. They have to be told and told with great emphasis. A condom is an effective barrier but homsexuals are not accustomed to using them; and because their use greatly detracts from satisfaction they are very much disfavoured, even apparently at the risk of death.
As the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, and the right reverend Prelate—neither of whom are still in the Chamber—pointed out, one of the great problems is that a person who is screened will not be shown to be carrying the virus if infection took place in the preceding three or four months. Therefore, it is no safeguard if a partner says, "It is all right. I had the test done last week and I am clear". Furthermore, it may

1211
be five years after infection before apparent symptoms develop.
The syndrome can be carried across the border between the homosexual and the heterosexual communities if a heterosexual is infected through injection or transfusion, with which I am not here concerned. Otherwise it can be only through the agency of bisexuals of either sex, though male bisexuals are more of a danger than females. The particular danger of bisexual acts should therefore be strongly emphasised, and it has not been. Once the virus has crossed that border, as it has in Britain, it can obviously be spread by one heterosexual to another—more ususally from the male to the female—but that is likely to happen less quickly, except that the hetrosexual community is of course much the larger. That is, first, because anal sex is less common among heterosexuals and, secondly, because full intercourse takes place relatively seldom during menstruation—the other occasion at which the risk of sexual transmission is the greatest.
If AIDS is therefore very far indeed from being unprejudiced, how do we account for the completely mistaken emphasis, I suggest, in the Government's campaign? I can only suppose it sprang from a mistaken desire to avoid being thought prejudiced themselves. Let me put it like this. If a mortal disease were known to be confined 99 per cent. to, say, left-handed people, the whole thrust of any campaign to counter it would be directed towards those unfortunate enough to be left-handed. No one would mind being thought prejudiced against left-handed people.
Of course promiscous heterosexuals are at risk, but when such a dire threat exists, as it does at present, surely the government attack should be overwhelmingly directed towards the specific people and the specific areas where the risks are greatest. Instead of doing that, the campaign has had, and is having, two serious deleterious results. It has thrown into panic millions who are at no risk at all, or at the very slightest risk, undoing much of what has been accomplished in recent decades in spreading the gospel that sex is not dirty, wrong or shameful but an incomparable delight. It must also have the effect of giving false reassurance to homosexuals—those who, on the contrary, chiefly should be made aware of the dangers and many of whom are bound to react by thinking, completely mistakenly, "Oh, AIDS is not prejudiced. I must be less at risk than I thought". The danger is then clouded instead of being emphasised.
Finally, I refer to the Surgeon-General in the United States, who said recently,
"Knowledge is the only vaccination against AIDS".
It is this absent knowledge that the Government should be disseminating, not inaccurate generalities.
7 p.m.
Lord Young of Dartington: My Lords, I should like to start by declaring an interest. I am the chairman of the College of Health. The college has an offshoot called Health Line, which is a telephone information service that includes AIDS in its coverage. We started the service on the subject of AIDS in November 1985
1212
and in the first six days after opening it for this purpose we had something like 30,000 calls, which showed the degree of concern and desire for information that existed at that time. That desire has abated hardly if at all.
It was not possible to deal with anything like the demand because we did not have the resources and in particular we did not have enough telephone lines to deal with such a large number of calls. It was only because we received support from the DHSS that we were able to increase the range and add to our number of telephone lines and have those lines staffed so that in small measure at any rate we could attempt to meet some of the demand for information about this new epidemic.
I do not think that it is only because of the interest that I have just mentioned that there is cause to congratulate the Government, as I very much want to do, on what they have achieved in the few months since last summer. If one goes back to July or August last year—and it is such a short time ago—that was a time when I at any rate was almost in despair. All those who had their eyes open could see that we were already faced with an epidemic that was spreading at an alarming rate.
We knew what had happened in the United States. The United States had mightily forewarned us about what would happen here unless action—drastic action—was taken. We have about three or four years' grace. Unfortunately we are following behind the United States on the same course; but we are about three or four years behind them, which gives us a chance to learn from their experience and to take the kind of preventive action which may mean that in the end we do not continue to follow the same dread course that they have followed.
Despite that warning, hardly anything seemed to be done on the front of public health education. It almost seemed as though the advertisements which the Government published earlier in the year were the first-ever advertisements that were meant not to carry any conviction with those who read them. They were opaque in the extreme, to say the least of it. Of course there were bright spots. Our own noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, was a tower of strength, and there are excellent doctors and excellent civil servants in the DHSS. But it was not until the Cabinet reshuffle and the arrival of Mr. Newton as Minister for Health that those of us who were concerned about the epidemic began to feel that at least there had been a change and there was a spirit of courage and determination and a sense of action being taken—with the people concerned being ready to take action—which had not so far been in evidence.
Now we have had the beginning of an outspoken advertising campaign with the promise of more to come. We have been told that we shall have a national leaflet drop in January, and that is greatly welcomed. Despite what was said by the right reverend Prelate earlier in the debate, we are expecting next week to have a special sub-campaign directed at youth through advertisements in the papers and magazines that are read by young people. So there has been a change and it is very much welcomed by all the voluntary bodies in the field. I should like to make that point quite clear.

1213
Tribute has already been paid (and quite rightly so) by the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, and the right reverend Prelate and other noble Lords to the work of the Terrence Higgins Trust. I should like to add my voice to that tribute. The Terrence Higgins Trust was out in the forefront long before it became accepted, as it has now been accepted, that in this epidemic there was a challenge to the whole nation. The trust was trying to focus attention on this problem long before it became general and, as it were, popular. Other voluntary bodies such as the Gay Switchboard, Body Positive, the Haemophilia Society and others, have all done whatever they could—and it has been a great deal—to mobilise their own members and arouse interest and concern in this great problem.
I am afraid that there is a great deal of concern in this sector in particular at the moment about the consequences of setting up a special health authority in place of the Health Education Council. I have no doubt that this is a good step to have taken, though there must be some doubt about whether the new special health authority will have the degree of independence that the Health Education Council used to have and whether it will be able to speak out with an independent voice and when necessary be critical of government policy. However, by and large the setting up of this special health authority is welcome.
The anxiety on the part of the voluntary bodies in the field is that there may be a hiatus in administration. Nearly all the bodies which receive support from the DHSS are seeking support for next year. They need support for at least a whole year if they are to plan ahead sensibly. But will the continuity of policy that is so necessary be interrupted by the setting up and coming into action of the special health authority next April? I think that with complete unanimity the voluntary bodies hope that the Government will be able to assure them that there will be continuity of policy and continuity of the necessary funding. If the Minister is able to say something at the end of this debate to that effect it will be most welcome to all the people who are working with the voluntary bodies that I have mentioned and those that I have not mentioned.
If I may, I should like to say a word about the reasons the voluntary agencies are so important in this field. AIDS is not just a medical problem but a social problem of the gravest possible kind, above all because prevention is not only the best cure but is the only cure. Preventive work and education of the public cannot be carried out only by doctors and medical people any more than it can be carried out only by the Government. It goes much wider than that and the important messages that need to be put across can only be conveyed with the backing of voluntary agencies that cover a very wide spectrum.
I think I can illustrate the point by referring again to the Government's advertising campaign. This campaign is greatly welcomed but it is almost certainly the case that behaviour will not be changed merely by advertising. It never has been and it is unlikely that it ever will be. If advertising has an effect it is a two-stage affair. First, there is the advertising and then there is the personal influence that can follow it, which comes through the leaders of public opinion in their localities and workplaces who take up the message. The advertising campaign will only be effective if it is
1214
backed up and followed by large numbers of people who are going to translate the message contained in the advertising campaign into the kind of language and the kind of backing which will really carry conviction with the population at large.
This is just one reason why voluntary bodies are so necessary; there are other reasons. I hope that the Minister will be able to say something reassuring, not only on the particular point that I have mentioned but also on the much broader point about the value of the contribution that voluntary bodies can make.
7.11 p.m.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, I was very glad to read in the Secretary of State's speech in another place on 21st November that the Government are trying to get over the message, stick to one partner. That will not be easy, or popular with a public which has indulged in pill-happy promiscuity for a generation or more under the purblind eye of a succession of governments, and, I am afraid, the Church. And it has been encouraged by fiction both on the screen and in print, as the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, so truly said.
I was less happy with the continuation of the Secretary of State's message that if you do not stick to one partner you should use a condom. However, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham has already touched on that, and so I shall not repeat the argument.
I was rather disappointed about half an hour ago when I got hold of the Health Education Council pamphlet, AIDS—What everybody needs to know. I read through it and it merely says that the fewer partners you have, the less you are at risk, and that the fewer partners your partner has, the less you are at risk. It is positively anodyne and I was very disappointed. I am sorry, but I think that morals do come into this. I make no apology for being thoroughly old-fashioned about it.
I keep hearing and reading that we do not want to equate AIDS with the wrath of God. Why not? With very great respect to the right reverend Prelate, who is not here—perhaps that is just as well—I should like to say a word to two about the wrath of God. I believe that the wrath of God to a great extent was the name that the old prophets (who were no fools) gave to the disagreeable consequences which they had observed were liable to follow upon flouting the laws of nature.
I know of no animal other than mankind which indulges in homosexuality. Many animals and birds are faithful for life to one partner. I think it is fairly safe to assume that homosexuality, and very often promiscuity, are against the natural order of things, and therefore if persevered in may bring trouble, often on innocent and guilty alike. I do not think it is possible to get away from the wrath of God altogether, although you may not wish to call it that. I believe that fear of dire consequences will be the Government's best ally in combating the AIDS epidemic with which we are threatened. I hope that the Government will stand firm and harness that fear.
AIDS is caused by a virus and viruses can mutate. Some viruses, such as the common cold virus, mutate continually, which is why it is so difficult to produce a

1215
vaccine against the common cold. Bubonic plague, the black death of the Middle Ages, was a virus and its chain of infection was man to flea to rat to flea and back to man again. At that stage, with greater knowledge of hygiene and good sanitation, it might have been easier to control. Then the virus mutated and it became pneumonic plague, and it spread from coughing and sneezing as colds and flu do today. That was the plague which was the great plague of London in 1665.
If the AIDS virus were to mutate in a similar manner, it would be rather a disastrous state of affairs to put it mildly. Therefore, it is vital to take all possible steps to check the spread of the virus now, at this stage, even though they may appear draconian and akin to scaremongering.
7.15 p.m.
Baroness Sharpies: My Lords, in answer to a Starred Question on 14th October the Government were not very forthcoming on plans to combat AIDS. However, in answer to a further Question on 19th November, the Minister then told the House much more about their proposals, which were very well received by your Lordships.
Today we have heard a great deal more and a great deal of information has been given to your Lordships by previous speakers. I should like to congratulate the Government on what they have done so far. The situation which the whole world is facing is a desperate one. We all realise that. Co-operation among all countries is surely vital if we are to find a cure in the future, but as other noble Lords have said that may be very many years ahead.
I believe that the Government have the balance about right in their publicity campaign. I have read all the literature that they have so far produced. They are advising people in a very clear way how to avoid contracting AIDS and at the same time preventing panic, as I understand there has been in some parts of America. Obviously, the unknown strikes fear into us all. However, when we are faced with the plain truth I think that we all react to it, especially when we understand the language in which it is written. I find the government publications easy to read and to comprehend.
Other noble Lords have spoken about the press and television. I feel that if the press and television will now show responsibility in both their articles and programmes on the scourge of AIDS, the Government's task in combating this vile disease will be that much easier. For example, in Time Out earlier this year there was an excellent and well informed article by Tim Clark entitled, "Safe Sex". This is a magazine, as your Lordships are aware, which is read by a great number of young people in the city.
Finally, my noble friend will be relieved to hear that I shall not burden her with any questions this evening. The Government have my full support in all the measures they have taken so far.
7.18 p.m.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, I shall be very brief in an attempt to allow the noble Baroness her proper time to answer questions. I am all for campaigns of informa-
1216
tion directed towards young people, as everybody must be. But we should not lose sight of the fact that AIDS is not a young people's disease. In Europe, two-thirds of people who have AIDS are over 30, and more than a quarter are over 40. It is essentially a grownup's disease. It is a world phenomenon, although we have not heard much about this in the debate so far.
I have read in a report of an organisation called Panos, which appears to be a good report, that the World Health Organisation has been rather slow to get started. Even in November of this year, the WHO had still no organised information on the legal measures taken by governments to control AIDS, the education programmes in different countries, the national policies operating in different countries, and the results of blood tests showing the level of HIV infection in different countries. Obviously, this is not all the fault of the international organisation. The difficulties experienced by some African countries where AIDS is at its worst are well known. When the noble Baroness answers, will she say what we, as a highly developed member of the World Health Organisation, are doing to help the organisation overcome those difficulties?
I imagine that there are four scenarios. The first is that AIDS will die out of its own accord, and that would be the best. Secondly, we may lick it by a combination of chastity and research. Thirdly, it may go on as it is, with a doubling time of nine months worldwide. Fourthly and worse, it may mutate so as to become infectious, in which case it does not much matter what we do.
I suppose that AIDS is the most dreadful microbe ever to hit mankind, not only because there is no prevention, no cure and no hope of survival—all that we have survived in earlier mortal pandemics—but because beyond all those, AIDS, and it alone of all the killers we have yet known, is transmitted by the act of love. People will therefore learn to feel differently about one another's bodies and their own or, more accurately perhaps, to think differently about what they feel. That will be difficult. Mankind will of course survive unless we face scenario four, because some people will succeed in doing that, and those naturally incapable of doing so, will be bred out. For those who do want to do so, there is a ready-made, highly thought-out system of morality and feeling, proven over centuries, which will provide what is needed.
The ideal of chaste marriage has always exerted a magical fascination. It has always been a beacon. To a great extent it will now be not only the beacon but the lifeboat.
7.22 p.m.
Lord Hunter of Newington: My Lords, at this stage in a debate so eloquently conducted by previous speakers, all that one can do is comment on some of the points that have been made. What do we know about various matters? The first thing we know is that we have an outstanding public health laboratory service. We have first class medical advisers. As a medical man, that is a great comfort.
We know that AIDS is a virus disease which attacks the immune system. It takes time to develop antibodies and therefore, as has been said, it cannot be detected for a matter of months. Only about 20 per

1217
cent. of people develop them. Unfortunately, women can catch the disease from normal intercourse. Having children may upset not only the woman's immune mechanism, so that she develops the disease, but, also, she can pass on the disease to her child. We know that some of the most tragic cases have resulted from blood transfusions with contaminated blood to haemophiliacs or after surgery. We hope that that is under control.
We know that in many parts of the world the disease is widespread and that it is spread by both sexes. We know that there is no cure for the disease and that people cannot be immunised against it. There are no immediate prospects of a vaccine. We know that the spread in this country, whatever happens elsewhere, has been mainly by homosexual contact. Whatever one's views about homosexuality, the facts must be faced, and, in the absence of prevention or cure, the only ways to control the disease must be examined.
We know that the rapid development of cancer of the cervix in the past 20 years, associated with promiscuity, was largely ignored by a great many young people. Fortunately for them, a treatment is now available if the disease is caught in time.
We know that the Government have taken active, vigorous steps to inform people about the disease, its dangers and the methods of minimising them. But we do not know what the public response will be and how effective the proposed measures will be. To be earnest is not enough. I am not blaming the Government; it is just a fact of medical research.
We know that many of the social and religious conventions of previous generations were introduced to protect women and children. What steps are now being taken by responsible individuals to protect the women and children on whom the future depends?
Fifty years ago, many men had a Wasserman test for syphilis before they married. Sometimes their prospective wives did so as well. Should some form of AIDS test not be available for people if they think that there is such a possibility? To demand that the Government spend more and increase resources on this disease to the detriment of other priorities in health such as cancer, coronary by-pass, the care of the mentally handicapped, and so on, is not an answer.
7.26 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, it will be commonly agreed that this debate has been valuable. It was opened by my noble friend Lord Kilmarnock in a thoughtful and persuasive speech. That has characterised the contributions made on both sides of the House. I propose briefly to discuss three issues: first, the question of research; secondly, the problems caused by drug abusers; and, thirdly, the resources available to the National Health Service, a matter mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Hunter.
First, research: as my noble friend Lord Kilmarnock said, there is an extremely dangerous attitude abroad in this country on this question. It is, "Let's leave it all to the Americans". There, as we are aware, hundreds of millions of pounds have been made available for research. Here, the sums of money made available have been trivial.
1218
As the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, will be aware, earlier this year a number of doctors who had been working in this field asked whether a substantial budget should be made available for research into AIDS. They were told that money would only be made available for specific projects which were sent to the Medical Research Council. To date, many of those requests have been turned down because, the researchers have been told, the MRC has inadequate resources. A general view has been expressed that we must have an adequate research budget. Many of us will look to the Government to give a clear assurance on that.
Secondly, there is the issue of drug abusers, which was also mentioned by my noble friend Lord Kilmarnock. We have discussed the problem of drug abuse in the United Kingdom in this House on several occasions. As we are all aware, there has been a steep rise in the level of heroin abuse in the United Kingdom, and it is continuing to escalate.
We must recognise that there is a genuine dilemma. We must take heroin abuse extremely seriously. As we are aware, in the United States it has run like wild fire through many communities. It has not so far had such a substantial impact in the United Kingdom, but it has been growing. In many inner city areas and elsewhere, we have the extremely serious problem of drug abuse and especially of heroin, to which I shall refer this evening. It is a major problem in many areas of inner London, Edinburgh, and Merseyside, and, I suspect the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham will agree, in many parts of the West Midlands.
In such a situation it is the height of folly to take action which could in some way encourage drug abuse. However, there is clear evidence that the sharing of needles by heroin addicts is leading to the most rapid growth of AIDS among drug abusers. In my view it is the availability of heroin that will determine the number of drug abusers and not the availability of needles. The Under-Secretary of State for Home Affairs, Mr. Mellor, who has special responsibilities in this field, has made clear his personal position, that he is in favour of making needles available. I believe that he is absolutely right on this question. Many of us would be reassured to discover that the Government shared Mr. Mellor's view and were taking action accordingly. We cannot delay this matter too long.
My noble friend referred to that tragic piece of film on "News at Ten" the other night when we saw those two Edinburgh prostitutes who had contracted AIDS as a result of sharing needles. What were they doing? They were going back on the streets in order to earn enough money to obtain more heroin to feed their habit, and thus of course infecting more people with AIDS. I hope very much that we shall have an early Statement on what the Government are prepared to do in this field. In my view it cannot be delayed. I recognise, as we all do, that it is a difficult issue but I believe that it is right to take action along the lines I have suggested.
The question of resources has underlain many of the contributions which have been made in this debate. There are two issues here. The first is the National Health Service, and the second the voluntary movement. On the National Health Service, in the United Kingdom, as we know, there are 600 AIDS

1219
patients. Half of that number are being treated in two hospitals: St. Mary's, Paddington. and St. Stephen's, Chelsea. Each therefore has had in the region of 150 patients. However, we know that the numbers in those hospitals will probably double within the next ten months. Those two hospitals face what most of us recognise to be a crisis situation.
Let me illustrate the problem facing one of them—St. Stephen's. In the clinic at St. Stephen's they are facing overwhelming pressure. There will be no medical social workers until next April at the earliest. There is a desperate need for nurse counsellors—a point raised by my noble friend Lord Winstanley during his speech—to talk to patients and to plan their discharge arrangements. When these patients are released from hospital they face massive problems in the community. Many face the risk of almost immediate eviction from their accommodation as soon as their landlord discovers that they have AIDS. They even face the problem of getting food from Meals on Wheels. People are frightened to have anything approaching physical contact with them. There is the difficult problem of talking to these patients about how they will break the news to their families. It seems to me that this indicates the urgent need for nurse counsellors at that hospital and also at St. Mary's. I very much hope that the Government will indicate that they are prepared to give priority in these areas.
St. Stephen's wants approval in principle for a special AIDS clinic. Unlike many projects this requires only partial funding by the National Health Service because a large proportion of the capital funding has already been offered to the hospital by a private charity, CRUSAID. But the project requires a guarantee of revenue funding to meet its revenue costs. I believe that this is urgent. So far patients have been treated on an out-patient basis in the John Hunter clinic for sexually transmissible diseases or in an inpatient ward, the Macaulay Ward. They are now being swamped with patients. There is a real problem facing the Riverside Health Authority. It does not have the resources to meet the revenue funding of this new clinic. I again remind the House that 25 per cent. of all AIDS patients in the United Kingdom are passing through this hospital. I therefore very much hope that the noble Baroness will be able to offer us something here.
Finally, I very much hope that the noble Baroness will have paid attention—as I am sure she did—to what the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham said about the problem of where those patients are likely to go when they become terminally ill and have to be cared for in the community. As we know, many of these institutions which look after the terminally ill are extremely nervous about taking AIDS patients. I believe that there is need for some contribution between the private and public sector, perhaps with funding on a pound for pound basis between the private and public sectors. If we do not get action here we shall face the very serious problem of substantial numbers of dying people not being able to obtain any form of civilised treatment in the community.
As I have indicated, the need in these areas is urgent and I very much hope that the noble Baroness and the Government will respond accordingly.
7.37 p.m.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, most of what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, referred to St. Stephen's Hospital in the Riverside district. The last I heard was that this hospital was on the regional list for closure. I hope therefore that the Minister will be able to give an assurance that St. Stephen's will not close.
I wish to say how grateful I am—as I think the whole House is—to the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, for opening a debate which has brought forth some extremely interesting and important contributions. I found myself in agreement with a very large amount of what was said and perhaps particularly with the references that have been made to the important role that the media can play in trying to get across the message to the public. This has been mentioned by four noble Lords.
There is no doubt that Britain and other countries face the greatest threat to their nation's health in modern times or perhaps ever. To put it at its starkest, if the Government's education campaign fails, if people take no notice, at the present rate of growth of AIDS, AIDS victims could occupy all the present NHS acute beds by about 1995. That would be 145,000 beds.
"All out war"—a phrase that came from the leaders of Europe's 12 nations a few days ago—puts it dramatically. I think that we should see it in dramatic terms. It is not only a European problem, but an African problem and a problem for the World Health Organisation. However, that kind of projection need not occur if the Government put adequate resources into a massive campaign beamed at the key targets, and even more important, if people actually respond to the message. We all know what the targets are. I shall touch on four of them.
If we take sexually active homosexual people there is no doubt that there has to be a great deal of straight talking, using terms that homosexuals understand and describing clearly the sexual activities which put people—not just themselves but anyone with whom they have contact—at risk. Sir Donald Acheson, the chief medical officer, circulated all medical officers a few days ago with a statement. I should like to take one or two facts from it. He said:
"Male homosexuals with more than one partner and bisexual men—some of whom may be married—need 'urgent advice' on the dangers to themselves and others from their current lifestyle. Nearly 90 per cent. of the 599 cases of AIDS reported in this country fall into this category".
The chief medical officer also reports that one in four of those homosexuals attending clinics for sexually transmitted diseases in London are infected with AIDS. Whether one calls it morality or something else, this is the greatest area of danger and the area to which we have to get our message through.
It is rightly said that AIDS also affects sexually active people in a heterosexual sense. They must learn the message. We must direct it to them in very stark terms and above all explain the risk they take if they have more than one partner. I think the right reverend Prelate goes a little far is saying that all of us who are married must totally follow chastity. I think I ought to be allowed to have a sexual relationship with my wife without—
The Lord Bishop of Birmingham: My Lords, the noble Lord has misunderstood what I said. I defined "chastity" as abstinence from all immoral sexual intercourse, and I do not include that.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I am glad that the right reverend Prelate has made that absolutely clear. I entirely agree that we must learn a lesson. If we do not learn that lesson now, those who sleep around and think they can get away with it will not only suffer themselves but others will too.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, made a very important statement concerning drug addicts. He spoke of the sharing of needles and the habit of mixing blood in the syringe in the mistaken belief that that purifies the drug before passing on the syringe for another person to use. Drug addicts are a section to whom we have to speak very sharply indeed.
I am most sad about two particular groups—the tragic case of haemophiliacs who have been infected with contaminated blood through no fault of their own, and, worst of all, small babies who have been infected by their mothers. They are indeed groups for whom we must express genuine and real sympathy.
The test of success of the Government's campaign is the exent to which people's behaviour patterns change. No longer can there be the easy morality—or immorality—the easy assumption that it is natural for young people to go to bed just because it is fun. No longer can that be thought as reasonable behaviour for the welfare of themselves or the nation. It is a major challenge to millions of our people.
I am concerned that the resources made available to the DHSS by the Chancellor of the Exchequer may be seriously inadequate. I should like to put six questions to the Minister concerning resources, about which I gave advance notice. First, how much is now available for AIDS research? That is a question which was quite rightly asked by the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley. Secondly, how much new money is being spent on public education? I do not mean funds already available to the Health Education Council. I share all the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Dartington, about the damage that may be caused to health education if the council's work is to be under the control of the Government and if it is not free to deal, as it does now, with issues that sometimes involve it in pressure upon the Government. Thirdly, how much money is available for the treatment of AIDS cases? In other words, how much is it costing to look after those already in our hospitals, and what extra money will be available on top of existing budgets?
Fourthly, what facilities will be available for voluntary screening and at what cost to the DHSS? I do not believe that it is enough to say to health authorities that they must prepare their plans for opportunities for screening in different parts of the country where people will undoubtedly want to be screened and for them to take it out of their very heavy budgets. I think that the Government need to put new money into health authorities. Fifthly, what resources are now available for counselling? That again is a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley. In many cases people are feeling desperate and need advice. As
1222
he and others have said, counselling is a specialised art. It is not something that any mug can do.
Finally, are the Government still proposing to cut £4 million from the funds of the Public Health Laboratory Service? That was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Hunter of Newington. It is in fact the national agency for monitoring the AIDS epidemic. I believe that if there were such a cut it would be an extraordinary form of saving.
My time is up and I am glad that the noble Baroness has plenty of time in which to answer all the questions that have been put to her.
7.46 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I am glad too. The subject of this debate is of the utmost importance and in the interest of providing as much information as is known, I shall gladly answer as many of your Lordships' questions as possible. My right honourable friend, in the debate in another place on 21st November, made a detailed statement on the present situation and on the actions that the Government are taking.
Your Lordships have raised a number of points already covered in that debate in another place but have characteristically also introduced new and important aspects and further dimensions of the problem. I have also received many helpful letters. including one from my noble friend Lord Vivian. All such correspondence is being carefully studied.
Since the speech of my right honourable friend, we have received further information about the numbers of AIDS cases. At the end of November, 599 cases had been reported to the Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre in Colindale; 296 have died. This represents an increase of 51 cases since the previous month. The trend is upwards and will remain so certainly for the next few years. In the light of this immensely worrying prospect, the important suggestions made by a number of noble Lords are all the more valuable. So let me now turn to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, and the noble Lord, Lord Ennals. I was most grateful for the advance notice given by those two noble Lords.
Research into AIDS is clearly of enormous importance. All possible steps should be taken to find effective treatments, and a cure for and a vaccine against it. Worldwide, a massive research effort is being mounted by the scientific community and by private industry. Considerable progress has been made, for example, in identifying the AIDS virus and methods of transmission. But, clearly, much more needs to be done. This country has some of the world's best scientists in this area and is making a full contribution.
A large-scale programme of publicly-funded research is being undertaken. It is being co-ordinated by the Medical Research Council, which has set up a working party on AIDS. On top of the work being carried out at its own research institutes, the MRC awards special project grants for research on AIDS. I am informed that, to date, the MRC has had sufficient funds for those AIDS projects that it has wanted to fund. I understand from a press release issued today from the MRC that it regards research on AIDS in this

1223
country, and by British researchers in Africa, as a high priority. We are to discuss with it the funding that will be needed for the new investigations that it believes are needed.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, spoke about research money, and I would totally disagree with his statement. The MRC, according to my information, has not yet turned down any worthwhile projects for lack of funds. I must repeat that.
The MRC is not the only body that funds research. Other public sector bodies are also pursuing significant programmes of research. These include the Public Health Laboratory Services, the National Blood Transfusion Service and the National Institute for Biological Standards and Control. A number of university departments are undertaking research in this field. It adds up to a considerable programme of work in the public sector. In the private sector, the British pharmaceutical industry devotes over £500 million a year to research work, and an increasing proportion of that is devoted to research on AIDS. I agree with the right reverend Prelate that research should be co-ordinated internationally.
AIDS is an international problem and there is growing international co-operation on research in the European Community, which has set up an AIDS working party. At the recent meeting between the EC countries, the need to exchange information was agreed. On a wider scale, the WHO is emphasising the need for co-ordinating research work as part of its global strategy on AIDS.
It should be clear from all that I have said that a great deal has been and is being done. Already significant advances have been made, for example, in identifying the AIDS virus and its methods of transmission. But much more needs to be done and this country will be playing its full part.
Turning to the engagement and training of new staff for AIDS clinics, most patients who are concerned that they may have been infected with the AIDS virus are seen at genito-urinary medicine clinics. The staffing of these is a matter for district health authorities, but my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services will be writing to all district chairmen asking them to ensure that their clinics are given adequate resources to meet the demands made upon them.
So far as concerns training, we have provided funds for programmes of training in counselling of HIV patients and those at risk of infection at three centres, in London, Birmingham and Bolton. They provide training not only for health care professionals but also for social workers and those employed in drug agencies and voluntary bodies. Over 1,500 people have been on courses in the London unit in the past 10 months.
The charity CRUSAID has put forward an imaginative and generous proposal for our outpatients' centre at St. Stephen's Hospital, Fulham. That centre would combine out-patient requirements with day care facilities. Riverside District Health Authority (in which St. Stephen's is situated) and North-West Thames Regional Health Authority are urgently considering the practicalities of longer-term funding and location. They are pressing ahead with
1224
this work as they are very supportive of the scheme. The outcome should be known very soon.
North-West Thames Regional Health Authority has asked its districts to put in bids by the end of the year for increased AIDS resources. There is a growing need for increased resources and of' course a growing need for increased in-patient beds. Paddington and North Kensington Health Authority is considering what increased resources to bid for. It has not yet put in its bid to the RHA. There are up to 12 beds at St. Mary's at present.
Paddington and North Kensington's short-term programme is out for consultation. One cost improvement proposal includes £100,000 to be saved by more efficient diagnostic services—pathology and radiology. That is an efficiency measure, not a cut. There will be a special meeting of the health authority to consider the short-term programme and comments on the proposals later this month.
We regard preventing the spread of AIDS among the drug-misusing population and through them to the heterosexual population in general, as of the highest priority. We are already doing a great deal to curb the spread of drug misuse through co-ordinated strategy designed to tackle supply, demand and treatment. The fewer the numbers who become involved in drug misuse at all, the greater our chance of limiting the spread of AIDS. Both our education and information campaign against heroin and that about AIDS inform the public, professionals and drug users about the risks associated with sharing injecting equipment.
Nevertheless, we believe that we shall need to do more to ensure that as many drug users as possible give up their habit or modify their practices in the light of the threat posed by AIDS. I am glad to be able to assure the noble Lord, Lord Hams of Greenwich, that we are therefore urgently considering further measures in the light of the McClelland report, which recommended: education in safer drug taking practices for injecting drug users who will not abstain; the issue of sterile injecting equipment to drug misusers on a one-for-one exchange basis, where assessment, counselling and treatment is available; the consideration of substitution prescribing for those patients whom it is likely to help stop (or reduce) injecting; and that advice on safe sex should be given to all drug users.
The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, and other noble Lords will agree that the issues raised are complex and controversial, but I hope that we shall be in a position to make a Statement shortly. The noble Lord, Lord Pitt, added his voice to suggestions that condoms should be provided free as part of the fight against AIDS. Careful consideration will be given to whether that is likely to be worth while, given that they are already widely available at low cost.
The noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, also mentioned support for the voluntary sector. I fully recognise the valuable contribution of the voluntary organisations working in the AIDS field. The Department of Health and Social Security already grant-aids several voluntary organisations and has increased that support substantially this year to over £200,000. The department will do all it can to ensure that the voluntary sector can make as effective a contribution

1225
as possible. Sickness and invalidity benefits already make provisions for all sick and disabled people, including AIDS sufferers. I believe that the same rules should be applied to all beneficiaries.
I now turn to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, about a new mechanism for meeting NHS costs. As the noble Lord rightly says, AIDS is a growing problem and will make increasing demands on NHS resources.
What is the future? It would be a very brave person who would make a prediction. All suggestions about how to provide necessary funding in the most efficient and effective manner are welcome. The noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, has had some very interesting things to say on this matter and has made some detailed and quite far-reaching proposals for a new framework for taking decisions on funding. I have taken note of the points he has made and I shall ensure they are conveyed to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services. Extra funds have already been allocated to the NHS to meet the demands on it of the spread of AIDS. Further funds will be allocated for next year. Those funds are on top of the main NHS budget.
To reply to the further questions of the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, and the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, about resources, we have already taken action to provide extra resources to those health authorities which are dealing with the great majority of AIDS cases. In both 1985–86 and 1986–87 extra money was made available to the three Thames regions which together account for some three-quarters of the AIDS caseload to date. Those sums were £700,000 in 1985–86 and £2·5 million in 1986–87. Indeed, £750,000 was provided for HIV testing to the public health laboratory service, and £370,000 has been provided this year for counselling services in the six haemophilia reference centres and for training courses in counselling. Decisions on funding for 1987–88 will be announced shortly.
I should add that the PHLS Board has not had its budget reduced. Over the past four years its funding has been increased by £7 million. In real terms the increase has been £2 million. Next year it will receive about £1·2 million extra cash. The board plays a vital role in the fight against AIDS. In recognition of that role it has been given special additional funding of £0·7 million to enable it to set up special facilities to do HIV antibody tests. That work is not under threat. Nor would we agree to any measures which would put its other important contributions to the AIDS fight at risk.
The response of the National Health Service is, of course, not confined to these centrally financed initiatives. All health authorities will be submitting their plans by the end of this year for taking local action to deal with AIDS. In the light of this, the Department of Health will be assessing the need for resources and for the training of staff in order to ensure that the necessary response is made to this terrible problem.
I was most grateful to my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes for her reassuring comments about dentists, which correspond with the advice that my department has given. My noble friend Lord Colwyn—I might as well take together the 12 per cent.
1226
of my noble friends who are dentists—spoke about the extra cost involved when dentists follow our guidance on sterilisation procedures. We are taking note of the possible extra costs incurred by dentists and others in following the guidance issued by my department. The system for their remuneration means that general dental practitioners are already reimbursed indirectly for all practice expenses. The NHS pays the dentists' fees for the treatment that they provide. These fees are set in such a way that the average dentist can earn the target net income set by the Government and have practice expenses reimbursed in full.
My noble friend Lord Colwyn asked me about alternative medicine and its use—an interesting thought. Some natural therapies such as homeopathy are already available in the National Health Service. We have seen no evidence that any of them is effective in preventing this disease or reversing its effects. However, if my noble friend has any new evidence on this, I should be most interested to have the details.
The noble Lord, Lord Pitt, spoke about health education as a vital means to control the spread. I thank him for his helpful comments, which entirely accord with the advice given by the department. The noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, applauded the work of the Terrence Higgins Trust. I acknowledge from our side the very important contribution made by the trust in counselling those whose lives are affected by HIV. We have provided funds for a programme of training counsellors in the counselling of patients, as I mentioned earlier.
The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, touched on treatment costs. We expect health authorities to spend some £10 million on tackling the problem of AIDS in the current financial year. This should increase in 1987–88 to about £17 million. A further £7·5 million will be spent in this financial year rising to £16·5 million next year on publicity, the public health laboratory service and research funded directly by the Department of Health.
We are funding a study to investigate the costs of treating individual patients with AIDS. This will enable us to establish the cost of treatment to the National Health Service more precisely than we can at present.
The noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, brought up the question of haemophiliacs. I should like very much to share the feelings of great sadness expressed so eloquently by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals. I wish, however, to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, that his figures are not quite right. A recent survey showed that 32 per cent., not 50 per cent., of those tested have evidence of HIV infection. I am sure that our sympathy goes out to those people who, anyway, have a horrid disease. If I may just include the babies, I think that this is perfectly terrible. Indeed, I think that it is terrible for babies to be born with withdrawal symptoms from drugs, let alone AIDS.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham spoke of a publicity campaign for young people. The government publicity campaign includes newspaper advertising, a poster campaign in major cities and a campaign aimed specifically at young people which will involve advertisements on the radio, in cinemas and in young people's magazines. BBC radio will also be running a youth campaign this

1227
month tied into ours. I should like to pay tribute to the BBC and ITV for the willing way in which they have helped the Government and have promised help in the future. We are most grateful.
The right reverend Prelate also spoke about condoms being not totally effective. Throughout our public education campaign we have stressed that having a number of sexual partners increases the risks of catching the infection. The need to avoid casual sex and reduce the number of sexual partners is our primary message. But there is evidence that condoms reduce the risk of the virus being transmitted. It would be irresponsible of us if we did not try to get that fact across, given that people's habits will persist. We agree that condoms are not totally effective in all circumstances, which is why we present them as second best to restriction in sexual partners to one who is faithful.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham raised the question of hospices. Hospices provide a tranquil environment in which terminally ill people can end their days with dignity. But by no means all—whether AIDS patients or not—wish to be in hospices. Some will need forms of acute care that hospices may not be able to provide. What is important is that a broad range of facilities is developed to meet the differing needs and wishes of AIDS patients.
The noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, spoke of bisexual and homosexual activity. We agree that most cases in this country so far have been male homosexuals. But, as we know from evidence in Africa and elsewhere, the disease can be transmitted heterosexually. We believe it important therefore, in our public education campaign, to encourage people to take action to prevent such a wide spread among heterosexuals in this country.
The noble Lord, Lord Young of Dartington, spoke again of the role of voluntary bodies. He made a very strong plea. I should like to pay tribute to the healthline telephone service which, like the Terrence Higgins Trust, has provided a vital service to the public. We have no intention of allowing our proposals for setting up the special health authority next year to interrupt our continued financial support for those bodies whose work we regard as of the utmost importance.
I am grateful to the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun. There is indeed a morality issue but if we were seen to be moralising we would alienate may of the people whose attitudes and behaviour we are aiming to change.
In the course of the debate, we have considered a wide range of issues, including the various measures that the Government have taken or will be taking. However, there is one point above all that I should like to emphasise. It is that the problem of AIDS is not one that can be solved by the Government alone. Certainly the Government have important responsibilities. They must ensure, for example, that their citizens receive adequate treatment and care; they must get the facts across to the public.
The facts are that the disease is being spread by sexual contact and by drug misusers sharing infected
1228
needles. It is not being spread by people picking it up in swimming pools or pubs, or through any of the wide gamut of everyday social activities.
We must get these facts across to the public. That is why the Government have embarked upon a massive public information campaign. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has announced that we shall be spending £20 million in the next 12 months on this campaign. I hope that your Lordships will give this vital campaign your fullest support. But, in the end, the major responsibility must fall upon individuals. It is by the actions of each and every person that the spread of this terrible disease can be halted and in time, I trust, reversed. This is the battle that we simply cannot afford to lose.
8.10 p.m.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, I have a few minutes in hand and I want to thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this important debate. I was glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, say that we are facing a challenge that we can meet, provided we face it with the necessary resources and determination. I should like to add my plea for the haemophiliacs. Even if the numbers were wrong, they need help. It must be remembered that they are in the condition they are because of the imported Factor 8 which had to be imported because we did not have the facilities to make it. It is a consideration that the Government must bear in mind.
I was grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham for giving us a definition of chastity that we could live with, and also to my noble friend Lord Kennet for his felicitous phrase that chastity in marriage was a beacon and it has now become a lifeboat. It was interesting that it was the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, and not the right reverend Prelate who raised the issue of the wrath of God. I am happy to be able to reassure her that the AIDS virus is a retro-virus wrapped in a fatty membrane which cannot behave in the way that she suggested and turn into some sort of bubonic plague.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for the wide-ranging response she made. She tried to pick up all our points. There are still one or two things I am a little unhappy about. She referred to the Secretary of State's request to the districts asking them to ensure that they have the necessary facilities to cope with AIDS. This is the wrong way round. It is up to the Secretary of State to ensure that they have the necessary facilities. They can make the bids but he has to put the money on the table.
As regards St. Stephen's and the out-patient clinic, I noted that she said that a decision was expected very soon, but I understand that the region is not likely to be able to cope with the recurrent revenue costs, and I hope that the Government will bear that in mind. Where she referred to efficiency measures as not being cuts, of course there are two ways of looking at that. I am not sure that you can pare path labs any further by efficiency measure without calling them cuts. Perhaps the Government will bear that in mind too.
On the question of drugs and the issue of clean needles for old, the noble Baroness told us that there will be a statement soon. We must hope that it will be

1229
a statement in the sense that has been widely expressed in this House, despite the difficulties that we all recognise about the dangers of encouraging drug abuse. I understand that the Secretary of State has been in Amsterdam today, where a scheme is operating. Maybe that will help him to come down on the side of the general sense of the debate today.
On voluntary bodies, the noble Baroness gave us some hope, although it was not specific. I was a little disappointed that she was not more forthcoming on the sickness benefit, the social security side, for AIDS patients. Some are in extreme difficulties, and I hope that she will have a look at that. Some are living on very low margins indeed.
I was grateful to the noble Baroness for saying that she would bring to the attention of the Secretary of State the sort of framework that I have suggested for funding. I certainly was not suggesting that it was the only possible model. I think possibly the Government themselves will come forward with a better one, but I hope that my suggestion will possibly be of some help and provoke some thought on the matter.
On the question of hospices, it is of course true, as the noble Baroness said, that there must be a wide range of provision, but hospices in particular are extremely difficult to get off the ground. They certainly will be needed so that AIDS patients can move out of acute beds and can pass their final months in humane and civilised conditions. I hope that the Government will look again at the possibility of helping the London Lighthouse and any other body of that nature which may be contemplating doing something in this direction.
Finally, I was most grateful that the noble Viscount the Leader of the House was able to be present at the opening of the debate. He told me that although he had a pressing commitment at Downing Street he would do his best to listen to as much of this debate as he could. We know that it is a subject that he bears close to his heart. I think all noble Lords will be encouraged that not only the noble Baroness but also the Leader of the House will be taking note of what has been said in your Lordships' House this evening.
I thank everybody for having made what I consider to be extremely valuable contributions. I am sure that the Government will look at them closely. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty
8.15 p.m.
Lord Kennet Lord Kennet rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether it remains their view that the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty should be strengthened, and if so, how.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we now pass from an almost wholly unbearable subject, where it is difficult to see any light at the end of the tunnel, to an only moderately unbearable subject, where there is indeed light to be seen at the end of the tunnel, and we shall try to explore it together this evening.
Early in 1983 the President of the United States had a great vision of a shield that could be built over that
1230
country and its allies which would exclude incoming nuclear missiles and thereby, in his words, make nuclear weapons themselves impotent and obsolete. It is often said that that vision of the President is now defunct and that the Strategic Defence Initiative is going ahead on another and more reasonable basis. But as recently as this year's United States Defence Department Report to Congress on SDI, which came out in June, it was repeated that the President had called for SDI
"with the ultimate goal of eliminating the threat posed by nuclear ballistic missiles."
Therefore it is still there, and we have to face that fact.
This ultimate goal is a bad idea for two reasons. First of all, if it were to prove possible—and it might; this is what causes so much fear in the world—the first side in the arms race to get it would then be in a position of absolute security to issue nuclear threats to the other side and require its compliance with whatever order it might wish to give. Consequently the moment when one side was about to get it would be one of almost unimaginable danger and instablility for mankind.
The second reason is that if the purpose is to get rid of nuclear weapons, or just nuclear missiles—and it is a good purpose—the best way to reduce the number of nuclear missiles that can hit your country is to reduce the number in existence, and that can be done through agreed multilateral disarmament at no cost and with great saving.
Not too long after that the Prime Minister went to Washington at Christmas 1984 and agreed with President Reagan their famous four points, one of which was that the deployment of SDI would have to be a matter for negotiation. Those points have been reaffirmed from time to time by the Government, with the support of all parties in this country, and they have from time to time been torn up by members of the American Administration, most notably the Secretary for Defense.
Soon after that, in January 1985, Messrs Schultz and Gromyko, the latter then Soviet Foreign Minister, met in Geneva and agreed to negotiate to prevent an arms race in space and to terminate it on earth. Her Majesty's Government have repeatedly, and rightly, endorsed that agreement.
In October 1985 Mr. Schultz struck a new note. He said:
"Any SDI deployment will have to be the subject of discussion and negotiation as approved with the Soviets, in accordance with the ABM Treaty.".
Note, it would have to be "the subject of" negotiation, not "subject to" negotiation. Here is the first appearance of weasel words in this matter, because in any case the signatories had in that treaty agreed not to deploy, so there is nothing to negotiate about "in accordance with the ABM Treaty". You can hear a new term here. Nevertheless, in March this year Her Majesty's Government rightly soldiered on.
Sir Geoffrey Howe said that one of the keys to progress at Geneva could be acts to strengthen the effectiveness of the ABM Treaty; confidence as to the relationship between offensive and defensive weapons might help to encourage big cuts in nuclear missiles. Again in June this year Mr. Renton in the House of Commons said:
"We would like to see the ABM treaty reaffirmed and strengthened.".

1231
As recently as 14th October, Mr. Renton again, at the First Committee of the United Nations, said:
"The 12 underline the importance of existing arms control agreements—including the ABMT of 1972—being strictly observed.".
I underline the word "strictly".
I come now to the reason for my question. We are now hearing a new tone, not only from the United States Administration but from our own Government. After her meeting with the President on 15th November, three weeks ago, the Prime Minister, in relation to SDI research which is permitted under the treaty, was asked, "What do you mean by research which you agree with the President is legal?". She replied this:
"You're still researching when you go right up to feasibility. If you don't know whether a system will work, you still research to find out.".
She suggested the establishment of a special committee "to resolve problems of interpretation" of the treaty, apparently forgetting that such a committee already exists.
If the United States SDI is to be developed and tested to "feasibility", the Prime Minister's word, the United States will be breaching the ABM Treaty. I do not know whether the Prime Minister had appropriate advice right beside her when she used this word for the first time in her press conference. Testing to feasibility is not allowed in the treaty unless one is to twist its meaning in ways our system of law would certainly not allow.
It was for that reason that I listened with pleasure and reassurance to what the noble Viscount the Leader of the House said on 18th November when he was answering questions on his repetition of the Prime Minister's Statement from the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, and from myself. He said:
"Lord Cledwyn, and the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, asked me to put a gloss on my right honourable friend's statement of what she means by 'up to feasibility'. Do they really expect me to come to your Lordships' House and try to put a gloss on my right honourable friend's statement? If my right honourable friend says 'up to feasibility', it is up to feasibility so far as I am concerned, and I do not know what else I am expected to say. So I shall not say anything at all, which seems to be the obvious answer to that question".—[Official Report, 18/11/1986; cols. 148–49.]
That is a prime piece from the noble Viscount and it is to his skill with such answers that he owes his great success and beneficial effect on British political life. However, we can all see what lay behind his caution.
Another element is now coming into the talk of the British Government on this subject. I quote the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, himself on 13th November:
"the Soviet Union is insisting on severe new restrictions [on SDI research] while its own … activities remain unacknowledged".—[Official Report, 13/11/86; col. 117.]
This new line is as if the ABM Treaty did not restrict Soviet activities as much as United States activities. It is exactly the same both ways.
Sir Geoffrey Howe a little later said that the Soviet Union appeared to be demanding a super-restrictive definition—more probably a revision—of the ABM Treaty and a veto over any future deployments before questions about their feasibility are answered—as if the treaty did not exist precisely to prevent deployment.
I should like to turn for a moment to the new developments which are taking place. They are quite new and not very much is known yet about research into anti-tactical ballistic missile defence, ATBM defence, for short. This is a better, more worthwhile military activity. It makes sense. If ATBM defence is deployed within certain limits it is not destabilising and not against the hopes of mankind. The ABM Treaty limits the transfer of technology to non-signatories, in ground-based ABM, I would point out, as well as space-based ABM. That would include anti-tactical ballistic missile ABM. Experiments for the development of ATBM, ground based, would be legal anywhere—in the United States, Europe or anywhere else in the world.
Some millions of dollars from the SDI office are now going into it in Europe under the present European architecture studies by our Ministry of Defence and others. This research is also going on as government research in Israel and by consortia of firms in Germany, Italy, France and perhaps in Japan. Perhaps we could hear more about that. All this is to be dovetailed into SDI next year to become an "integrated and interactive system within SDI". At that stage will any future developments rely on United States space-borne C-3? If so, will they not themselves be illegal since space-borne C-3 will be illegal? I fear this may be the case.
Of the present stage of European Architecture studies, Richard Perle last week said:
"this is the ground floor of a very large structure that will be built over time".
We recognise our old friend. Aviation Week tells us further:
"The European Theatre defense will use both improved versions of existing air defence equipment such as the Raytheon Patriot and technology derived from the United States Strategic Defense Initiative for use against intercontinental ballistic missiles."
In other words, if the technology is transferred to European firms and governments it will be so transferred illegally. If it is not transferred our firms and governments lose out, and so we are on a hook.
In the second stage, which is to start next year, how much control of European firms in this matter will pass to United States firms and departments through the consortia which will have arisen? Could ATBMs themselves be a terminal, endoatmospheric stage of anti-strategic ballistic missiles in the United States, which in increased numbers would be illegal? That is a question to the Government. Shall we be asked to make them for the United States? Already two sizes are being talked of: 5,000 metres to intercept and 15,000 metres to intercept, which begins to sound more like the stage of an anti-strategic ballistic missile.
Answering a Question on 21st October the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, said that the architecture study we are doing:
"will examine from a UK perspective, the threats with which a strategic defensive system would have to cope in the European theatre".—[Official Report, 21/10/86; col 260.]
How does that cloudy language relate, if at all, to what is now going on? What threats; threats to what target in Europe?—only ballistic missile threats obviously, not air-launched threats in general. What Europe? —United States assets in Europe obviously. What else?

1233
All this is or is not illegal under the ABM Treaty. How is that to be decided? The United States Administration have refused to release the negotiating record of that treaty to Congress, although the Senate has a judicial role in the administration of treaties. A Joint Consultative Committee exists between the United States and Russia. The United States prefers rather to complain about it than to use it. It is constantly being attacked by the Administration instead of being used and, with the United States withdrawal from SALT II, which has effectively happened, it is presumably to be killed off together with the agreed mutual tolerance of satellite spying by "national technical means".
I turn now to what can be done. On 13th November, my right honourable friend Dr. Owen wrote a letter to the Prime Minister in which he said:
"As presently drafted, the ABM Treaty already contains effective means of avoiding new competition in defensive arms; it need not be amended and it would help if you made it clear that you believe it should neither be broadened, nor narrowed. According to Article V of the Treaty, 'each party undertakes not to develop, test, or deploy ABM systems or components which are sea-based, air-based, space-based, or mobile land-based'. It does not mention research yet both sides implicitly accept the legitimacy of research. There is no disagreement that the continued development, testing and deployment of a single,fixed, ground-based system by each side also is permitted. The problem is to identify the demarcation between permitted 'research' and prohibited 'testing and development' of ABM systems and their components, particularly those that would be deployed in space.
"Surely President Reagan should be willing to describe the specific activities which the United States plans over the next ten years. The Soviet Union could then specify which of those activities it would consider to be in violation of the treaty. At the same time the mirror-image of this process could be carried out: with the Soviet Union specifying its planned activities, and the United States identifying which of those activities it considered to be permitted and which prohibited by the Treaty. Through such an interactive process, the two sides hopefully would come to a precise understanding of the specific meaning of the Treaty's key provisions and there would then be no need to use the term 'laboratory' [which was then the vogue word] which is clearly too restrictive to allow any agreement.".
In the Prime Minister's reply, she, in effect, dismissed this constructive approach to the problem.
Now, let us try to put things together. The Government know that Mr. Reagan wants to deploy a shield. The Government know this is impossible, as does everyone else—including, apparently, even Dr. Teller himself, who first suggested it. The Government know that much of the serious work is being done on point defence systems to protect retaliatory forces, and C3 and decision centres—which can be sound deterrence. But it is not what the President wants.
The Government know that tests of ATBMs are useful for testing terminal ASBM systems as well: if we did them, they would not be in actual breach of the treaty but they would be a clear circumvention of it. The Government know that European prime military targets are vulnerable to aircraft and to air-breathing missiles and not only to ballistic missiles. The Government know that these European acrhitecture studies are only about defences against ballistic systems, all the same.
As the German Government—and presumably NATO as well—have pointed out, "Extended Air Defence" is what we need and what in any case we, and our NATO allies, have got to find money for.
1234
Neither propping up Mr. Reagan's vision of a shield, nor spending money to support the US Army Strategic Defense programmes, let alone spending it to shred the SALT II and ABM treaties is our Government's or NATO's business or interest.
The Government know that when the European architecture studies are completed next year, all at American expense, the next stage of programme definition and development is intended by the United States to be at our expense—financial and scientific.
The Government know that the productive deployment of our scientific manpower—a limited and infinitely valuable human resource, trained at the taxpayers' expense—is a national interest. Yet, here, without public discussion and without, apparently, a moment's thought, this manpower is being hired out to work on a "strategy" as misconceived in purpose as it is fanciful in application. The Government know, just as well as the Reagan administration knows, that Assured Survival—as they like to call the deployment of strategic defences against ballistic missiles by the United States and the Soviet Union—depends entirely on Soviet co-operation.
And they know that that co-operation is most unlikely to be forthcoming—which is why the President wants the United States to be allowed to deploy ABMs anyway and wants to get all his allies to help him. SDI is no longer just research; it is active United States Government policy; and so, necessarily, is withdrawal from the ABM Treaty. The Government know this and should stop prevaricating about "only a research programme".
In its last two years, the American Administration is doing all it can to "create facts"—that is the phrase—and now our Government are aiding and abetting it in part by "creating facts" which will be beyond the reach of Congress. The Government know that SDI "Battle Management", the European part of which our Ministry of Defence is now to work on to the tune of 3.3 million dollars, depends on the total integration of all the relevant systems with as much "interception" as possible in the "boost phase"—which requires the "assets" (as weapons are now becoming called) to be over the target area the whole time. This the Government know and are in fact working to bring about, not to prevent.
The Government also know that the logic of all these schemes is the inextricable integration of Britain's and Europe's efforts and territory in a United States system at a necessarily low, or subservient, level. The "Battle Management" of the system our MoD is now being paid to study will not be in SACEUR's hands or in the North Atlantic Council's hands. It may well not even be in human hands at all.
All this is being conducted outside NATO in a series of bilateral deals so that there can be no NATO political control. The Government know also that the United States centre of political gravity is moving away from Europe and that at the same time these plans aim at integrating United States allies ever more closely with the United States military structures and activities.
I believe that things are now beginning to go through as routine in the Ministry of Defence which would not have gone through at all in Michael

1235
Heseltine's day—things leading to all that I have just described. How far do the Government intend to suck us in?
This brings me back, my Lords, to my Question, which seems to me the best formal way of putting it:
"To ask Her Majesty's Government whether it remains their view that the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty should be strengthened, and if so, how".
8.38 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Birmingham: My Lords, it seems to me that the Question which has just been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, is of enormous importance, and I should like to thank him for raising it in this House. I agree with most of what he said but I want to put my arguments in a slightly different perspective.
The meeting at Reykjavik between President Reagan and Secretary Gorbachev very nearly brought renewed hope for mankind by means of an epic agreement to limit nuclear weapons and to end the terrible nuclear arms race which is eating up our resources so badly—resources that are needed for creative purposes—and which is causing fear to darken the world. But that meeting at Reykjavik was a disaster. People sometimes try to dress up disasters as successes. This was a disaster and the cause of the disaster was the deep disagreement between the USA and the USSR on the subject of SDI.
SDI is contrary to the intentions of the ABM Treaty. The objective behind SDI is to build up a system of defence against nuclear missiles of such a character that even if not all missiles are shot down, so many of them are that the advantage of first strike, the shield, is removed. Never mind that some say that this would only cause a potential enemy to build more missiles if fewer are going to get through; never mind that some people say that you could never trust the computer system on which SDI depends; never mind all the other objections that could be brought against it; never mind if it belongs to a dream world. If that dream could, peradventure, be translated into reality, it would be contrary to the spirit of the ABM Treaty agreed between President Nixon and Mr. Brezhnev on 26th May, 1972.
The preamble of that treaty runs as follows:
"The USA and the USSR, proceeding from the premise that nuclear war would have devastating consequences for all mankind:
Considering that effective measures to limit anti-ballistic missile systems would be a substantial factor in curbing the race in strategic offensive arms and would lead to a decrease in the risk of outbreak of war involving nuclear weapons;
Proceeding from the premise that the limitation of anti-ballistic missile systems, as well as certain agreed measures with respect to the limitation of strategic offensive arms, would contribute to the creation of more favourable conditions for further negotiations on limiting strategic arms etc … agrees as follows".
That is the preamble; and so the ABM Treaty is based on the view that the deployment of ABM systems increases the nuclear arms race beyond those permitted in the treaty. President Reagan's SDI plans proceed on the opposite assumption, that ABM systems could in themselves produce an adequate defence against nuclear weapons and so render the nuclear arms race futile.
The principles are contrary, and so the question arises: what is the view of Her Majesty's Government
1236
towards the stated aims of the ABM Treaty? I know that this country has not signed it and, in that sense, it is not our business; but it has been signed by our closest ally, with whom we are said to have a special relationship, and so we really want to know what view is taken of the principles of this treaty by Her Majesty's Government. I look forward to the noble Lord the Minister making that clear. Does it remain the view of Her Majesty's Government that the treaty should be strengthened, and if so, how?
Like the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, I should like to ask a question about feasibility. The Prime Minister said when she returned recently from a visit to President Reagan that she had agreed that SDI should be tested up to feasibility. Not being able to find an adequate description of what that word meant in this House or in the other place, I took refuge in my dictionary. I see that the word "feasibility" is derived from the Latin facere (to make) and so it should mean "up to practicability". Is it right to interpret this as meaning that SDI should not only be researched in laboratories but also developed and tested up to the point at which it would be practicable? This is such an important matter that I hope the noble Lord the Minister will at last be able to enlighten us; otherwise we are in confusion, and that is never a desirable state to be in when discussing defence strategies.
The matter is of peculiar importance for pressing reasons. In the first place, President Reagan, in his speech to the United Nations in September, acknowledged the Russian concession that laboratory research into SDI is permissible under the treaty, but he offered a new package which included a less restrictive view of research, to which the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, has referred. Instead of the 15 years' notice of withdrawal proposed by Gorbachev, Reagan proposed seven and a half years' notice—only half the period. But he coupled with that the proposal that should either side after that time decide to deploy ABM systems it,
"would be obliged to offer a plan for sharing the benefits of strategic defence and for eliminating offensive ballistic missiles".
Two years, he said, would be allowed for such negotiations and if after that period there was no agreement—and it seems highly probable that after those two years there would be no agreement—either side would be free to deploy its ABM systems after giving the six months' notice at present required by the treaty of 1972. That is an important proposal, and as the chief ally of the United States of America we should like to know the view of Her Majesty's Government about such a proposal.
There is another reason why this matter is so important. That is to be found in the phrase used by President Reagan, to the effect that during the initial seven and a half year period,
"each side should be free to research, develop and test strategic defences in accordance with the treaty".
And so the question to be asked is: how can such research and development be in accordance with the ABM Treaty? Do Her Majesty's Government agree, or do they not, with this interpretation of the treaty that this is permitted under the ABM Treaty?
We read in Article V of the treaty as follows:
"Each side undertakes not to develop, test or deploy ABM systems or components which are sea-based, space-based or mobile land-based".

1237
That seems clear enough. It seems as though the development and testing proposed by President Reagan is expressly forbidden by the terms of the treaty. However, Professor Lawrence Freedman, Professor of War Studies at King's College, London, has drawn my attention to Agreed Statement D, which is attached to the treaty. That reads as follows:
"In order to ensure the fulfilment of the obligation not to deploy ABM systems and their components … the parties agree that in the event of ABM systems based on other physical principles and including components capable of substituting for ABM interceptor missiles, SBM launchers or ABM radar being created in the future, specific limitations on such systems and their components would be subject to discussions".
I am told that statement was included in 1972 in order to ensure that Russian lasers, then being developed, would be included in negotiations; but now it would seem the United States of America is using it to insist that it has the right not only to research but also to develop and test ABM systems if they are based on new physical principles, because those lie outside the treaty. In 1972, it seems, the Agreed Statement D was included so that lasers might be included. Now it seems that it is being used so that they can be developed and tested outside the treaty.
If they lie outside the treaty, there seems no restraint to their being not only developed and tested but also deployed. Secretary of State Shultz had earlier said that the USA would abide by what was commonly thought to be the interpretation of Clause V, that they were forbidden. However, President Reagan, in his address to the United Nations seems to be redefining the position of his country not by Clause V in its obvious meaning but as interpreted by Agreed Statement D.
What position do Her Majesty's Government hold over this? Are they still in favour of strengthening the treaty or do they side with President Reagan in weakening it by regarding potential future SDI components of ABM systems as being based on new physical principles and so outside the scope of the treaty?
I ask these questions with some anxiety. Recent events have shown USA international strategies to be in some "confusion and disarray". I take that phrase from the USA. We cannot afford confusion in matters where a terrible nuclear arms race of potential unimaginable frightfulness is at stake. Agreement at Reykjavik seemed so near and yet so far. The influence of allies at a time of confusion and disarray cannot be without effect; and in any case I am persuaded that the citizens of this country would be more reassured if they could be clear about the views of Her Majesty's Government upon these important matters. I look forward with much expectation to the enlightenment that I hope the Minister will be able to give on this important Question, which I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, for raising in this House.
8.50 p.m.
Lord Irving of Dartford: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, for giving us this opportunity for debate, even if it is rather late in the evening. The ABM Treaty was a product of the Salt I talks and was signed on 12th May 1972 by both
1238
superpowers. The treaty was ratified in September 1972 by both parties, and instruments of ratification were exchanged in October 1972. The treaty was reviewed in November 1977 by the US-Soviet Standing Consultative Commission and was found to be operating satisfactorily and therefore required no amendment.
The Labour Party in its document Defence and Security for Britain 1984 said:
"Labour strongly supports the existing Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. It is opposed to any action to undermine its provisions, including development of the so-called 'Star Wars Strategic Defence Initiative by the United States".
I gave a very full critique of star wars in the speech I made to your Lordships' House last Wednesday night. I do not intend to bore the House with another effort.
I think that there are two main issues tonight. The first issue is SDI and the interpretation dispute. In October 1985, President Reagan, supported by hardliners such as Richard Perle, Assistant Secretary for Defense, put forward the idea of an alternative interpretation of the ABM Treaty based on a new reading of Agreed Statement D. The motivation for the new interpretation was to pre-empt criticism of SDI on the grounds that it violated the ABM Treaty. NATO allies including Great Britain protested, and Mr. George Shultz persuaded the President not to persist with the proposals. However, according to an article by Lawrence Freedman in The Times of 16th October, President Reagan was still trying to convince Mr. Gorbachev of the correctness of the new permissive interpretation.
Mr. Gerard Smith, chief negotiator of the treaty, attacked the new interpretation in The Times in October of this year and said:
"This new version of the treaty has drastic implications for the survival of the treaty and indeed of the whole arms control process.".
John Rhinelander, who was also involved in the preparation of the treaty, said that the attempt to place SDI outside the treaty was,
"a dishonest and disingenuous interpretation of the treaty".
Those are hard words about his own government by an American who was a negotiator. Rhinelander was also quoted in the New Scientist of 28th October as saying,
"All but one of the American negotiators present at the 1972 talks agree that the new definition as argued by the Reagan administration is 'absolute rubbish' ".
He also said:
"It looks to me that Reykjavik foundered because the Russians were trying to make an interpretation of the treaty tighter than in 1972, while the United States was trying to make it much looser.".
As these Americans say, we ought to get back to and stick to the terms of the treaty. In any case, it is essential that an agreement on the meaning of the treaty be reached as quickly as possible so that it may underpin discussions on arms control.
The second issue tonight is that of alleged transgressions. Washington has long accused the Soviet Union of violating the treaty by the building of the radar system at Krasnoyarsk. The force of these allegations is weakened by two things. First, it is far from certain, in the view of a number of British analysts, that Krasnoyarsk is a violation. It could in fact be what the Soviets claim it is—namely, a radar for tracking manned space flights as claimed by the

1239
Observer on 24th March 1985. Secondly, Britain and the United States last month signed an agreement to modernise the early-warning radar system at Fylingdales in Yorkshire. Both Gerard Smith and Rhinelander claim that this system, plus an American system at Thule in Greenland and the Krasnoyarsk system, are all in violation of the treaty.
In October 1985, the Soviet Union offered to halt the building of Krasnoyarsk in exchange for the non-modernisation of the Yorkshire and Greenland systems. This offer was dismissed by the United States on the grounds that since Fylingdales and Thule existed at the time of the agreement they were therefore not bound by the treaty. Scientists have argued that the British and United States radars are not being modernised but that they are being replaced and therefore do fall within the scope of the treaty.
It is imperative that agreement should be reached. I should like to know what Her Majesty's Government are doing to help to reach such an agreement. I should also like to know why reference has not been made in this matter to the US-Soviet Standing Consultative Commission which was set up for this very purpose.
As the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, said very recently, the trouble is that there is too much distrust. I believe that if we are to make progress, both in settling the dispute and in arms control, we must trust one another a great deal more than we have done.
8.57 p.m.
The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, is an indefatigable questioner on arms control and disarmament matters. I make no complaint about that. But the line of the noble Lord's questions seems to indicate a fear that Government policy is somehow flawed. I hope I can persuade him that that is not so.
I have listened with great attention to what has been said this evening. What I say in reply will perhaps not come as a surprise to your Lordships. The reason is that the basis of the Government's policy has been clearly stated and explained to your Lordships on several occasions. Many of the issues raised in the course of this evening's debate and also raised more generally by others outside this House are simply questions which are not susceptible to rapid and easy answers now. The strategic and political issues raised by the strategic defence initiative and its relationship with the ABM Treaty will be with us for a number of years and will need constant re-assessment with the passage of time.
As your Lordships well realise, Her Majesty's Government are not a party to the 1972 ABM Treaty. But it remains our policy to contribute towards the maintenance of this treaty. We regard it as one of the basic components of the current strategic relationship. The drafters of the treaty had as their objective the creation of a stable and predictable strategic environment, one in which neither side was able to develop defensive systems capable of undermining the equation that had hitherto prevailed. But it is often held that this perception and the situation of mutually assured deterrence which it brings about is immoral. The argument runs that it is wrong to base one's security on the risk of massive potential destruction.
1240
Accidents could occur. A madman could trigger off a crippling first strike or a conventional conflict could escalate into an all-out nuclear exchange which would result in the nuclear holocaust.
The Government do not underestimate these concerns. The comprehensive arrangements to prevent the accidental release of nuclear weapons and for the closest political control over their use in practice make the possibility of accidental use or use by a madman vanishingly small. And the awful destructive power of nuclear weapons, with the certainty of massive destruction which they bring, provides the best guarantee against their use. Deterrence works and has been seen to work over the last 40 years. Nuclear weapons cannot be disinvented. That is why we hold to the ABM Treaty which provides the framework of stability and predictability in which nuclear deterrence can be managed and further arms control agreements sought.
The question then arises of how to ensure that the ABM Treaty continues to provide this framework. Strict compliance with the ABM Treaty remains essential. United Kingdom concerns are well known. We believe that existing arms control agreements should continue to be observed scrupulously by signatories to them. That is why we have said that we believe the construction of the Soviet radar at Krasnoyarsk raises serious concerns which the Soviet Union should answer.
May I now say a few words about the United States SDI research programme. Many would have us believe that the SDI represents the main threat to the ABM Treaty, and that by participating in the programme Her Majesty's Government are contributing towards undermining that treaty. But such a belief is mistaken. First, the United States Government have given repeated assurances that their research will be conducted in accordance with the existing treaty obligations, including the ABM Treaty. The US Government publishes every year an extensive report to Congress on the SDI. This includes a comprehensive discussion of compliance aspects, including those affecting Allied participation in the programme. A copy of this document is in the Library of your Lordships' House and I commend it to noble Lords who have concern over this matter. I wish I were in a position to commend to noble Lords a similar document about the compliance with the ABM Treaty of Soviet research into strategic defences.
Secondly, many—and some noble Lords are among them—forget that the SDI is a research programme investigating the feasibility of strategic defences. That has always been the aim. The ABM Treaty permits research. Of that there is and can be no doubt and it is clearly right that the United States should conduct its own research programme in the light of the Soviet Union's own activities, which have been explained to your Lordships on many occasions. But, until it can be clearly demonstrated that the SDI holds out the prospect of something better, we shall continue to rely on nuclear deterrence. Churchill's words have often been quoted, but they bear repetition:
"Be careful above all things not to let go of the atomic weapon until you are sure, and more than sure, that other means of preserving peace are in your hands."

1241
The Government adopt the same view with regard to the ABM Treaty. We should hang on to it as a stable element in a changing world.
A number of points were raised during the course of this evening's debate. I think the answers to many of them are well known, but perhaps I can help your Lordships just a little further. I first repeat the basis on which the United Kingdom and the United States see the strategic defence initiative. Your Lordships know of the four points that were agreed between my right honourable friend the Prime Minister and President Reagan in December 1984. Although those points have been often referred to in your Lordships' House, I hope your Lordships will forgive me if I repeat them again, because I believe that they deserve more study than they have perhaps so far enjoyed.
The first is that the United States and the Western aim is not superiority but balance, taking account of Soviet developments. The second is that SDI-related deployment would, in view of treaty obligations, have to be a matter for negotiations. Thirdly, the overall aim is to enhance, not to undermine, deterrence; and I hope the right reverend Prelate will bear that point in mind. Fourthly, East-West negotiations should aim to achieve security with reduced levels of defensive systems on both sides. That is the position of the United Kingdom Government. It is the position, too, of the United States Government, as they have reaffirmed on more than one occasion.
I turn now to the ABM Treaty itself, which is of course the subject of the noble Lord's Question. Her Majesty's Government have advocated strengthening the treaty through reaffirming and clarifying it. We believe that United States detailed discussion of SDI compliance with the ABM Treaty and attempts to discuss treaty compliance more generally with the Soviet Union are consistent with this approach. We also note, as Mr. Nitze told Congress last week, that the United States want, and I quote his words,
"to continue to discuss with the Soviets our view of what is permitted by the ABM Treaty".
That is the response to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, who suggested that that should take place. Indeed, I think he was quoting a letter from Dr. Owen to my right honourable friend the Prime Minister; so that is the answer to that point.
It is a matter for regret that the Soviet Union is apparently unwilling to engage in detailed discussion about compliance of their own strategic defence work with the ABM Treaty, or to meet United States concerns in this area. The Soviets seem more interested in re-writing the ABM Treaty or, as they have put it, hardening the terms.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, asked particularly about the word "feasibility", which my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, and others, have used. I must say that I was much attracted to the definition of that word which my noble friend the Lord President of the Council offered to your Lordships not so long ago. However, I would add to that in this way. I think that I would take the commonsense view of what is meant by that word. Research is pointless unless pursued to the point of demonstrating whether the devices concerned are going to work. It has long
1242
been stated that the purpose of the SDI research programme is to investigate the feasibility of strategic defences. Feasibility must be assessed before taking the decision whether or not to move to the next stage.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will give way at this point. He is weaseling again. We all agree that the treaty permits research into feasibility or into anything else you like. What the Prime Minister said was that she looked forward to testing feasibility, and we all ought to agree that the treaty forbids testing.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I think I have already answered that question.
Lord Kennet: No, my Lords.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the noble Lord referred also to the answer that my noble friend the Lord President gave a few weeks ago. I do not think I have anything to add to those two comprehensive replies.
I have been asked about the position of the radars at Krasnoyarsk and Fylingdales. I have already referred to one of them. The ballistic missile early warning system at Fylingdales was there long before the ABM Treaty, which does not prohibit modernisation of existing radars. Modernisation of RAF Fylingdales will be fully in accordance with United States obligations under the ABM Treaty. Fylingdales and the new large phased radar under construction at Krasnoyarsk are not comparable. That was fully explained to the Soviet authorities early this year. As I said earlier, we have repeatedly urged the Soviets to respond to legitimate United States concerns on the Krasnoyarsk installation.
At a meeting with President Reagan in December 1984 my right honourable friend the Prime Minister agreed with the President an overall approach on the strategic defence initiative, and I have recited the four points which emerged from that meeting. That document has stood the test of time remarkably well. It tackled the main issues which needed to be addressed and will need to be addressed for some time to come. That approach remains valid and was indeed reinforced by the recent meeting between my right honourable friend and President Reagan again at Camp David. Their agreed statement on their most recent meeting said:
"We also agreed on the need to press ahead with the SDI research programme which is permitted by the ABM Treaty".
The complex issues raised by the relationship between strategic offences and strategic defences are being addressed in the bilateral Geneva nuclear and space talks. That is the forum, together with the specialised forum established by the ABM Treaty itself—which has been referred to this evening—in which treaty issues should be addressed.
The sixth round of the Geneva talks ended on 13th November. They resume on 15th January. Inter-sessional talks took place in Geneva last week. I hope that in a further round of talks progress will be made even before the main negotiations resume in Geneva. The statement issued following the meeting at Camp David last month set out clearly what the priorities are. But we look to the Soviet Union to address seriously the issues which the Americans have sought to discuss with it over a number of months.

British Railways (No. 2) Bill
Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.

London Docklands Railway (City Extension) Bill
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.
House adjourned at ten minutes past nine o'clock.

  DBS: AWARD OF CONTRACTS
  DBS: AWARD OF CONTRACTS