Sitting of 1 May 1986

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

  PRIVATE BUSINESS
  TEIGNMOUTH QUAY COMPANY BILL (By Order)
  SOUTH YORKSHIRE LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT BILL (By Order)
  BEXLEY LONDON BOROUGH COUNCIL BILL (By Order)

  SHOREHAM PORT AUTHORITY BILL (By Order)
  Orders for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time upon Thursday 8 May.

  MILFORD HAVEN PORT AUTHORITY BILL (By Order)
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [18 February], That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  Debate to he resumed on Thursday 8 May.

  BRITISH RAILWAYS (STANSTED) BILL (By Order)
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [24 February], That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  Debate to he resumed on Thursday 8 May.

  HARWICH PARKESTON QUAY BILL (By Order)
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [28 February], That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  Debate to be resumed on Thursday 8 May.

Oral Answers to Questions
  NORTHERN IRELAND

    Unemployment
    Mr. Ron Brownasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about unemployment in Northern Ireland.
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Dr. Rhodes Boyson): At 6 March 1986, the latest date for which figures are available, there were 124,403 unemployed claimants in Northern Ireland. The unemployment rate was 21·4 per cent. I announced, in March, a £20 million package of enterprise and unemployment measures, which is expected to create up to 3,500 extra jobs in its first year of operation.
    Mr. Brown: Was not John De Lorean responsible for making many people unemployed in Northern Ireland? Will the Minister take steps to ensure that that individual is extradited to this country and placed on trial? Will he contact the American President and put that view to him, remembering, after the sordid Libyan affair, that one good turn deserves another?
    Dr. Boyson: That was an interesting question, and one that I had not expected. Last July, when there was a debate on the De Lorean affair, we said that the Government would do all that they could to bring De Lorean to trial if he ever touched down in the country. I take note of what the hon. Gentlman says, and undoubtedly other Ministers and Members will have heard it as well.
    Mr. Robert Atkins: Would not unemployment be assisted far more greatly in Northern Ireland if the example set by companies such as Shorts, and Harland and Wolff, which do so much to provide jobs for people in the Province and exports to the world, were emulated by others in the Province?
    Dr. Boyson: I entirely recently agree with my hon. Friend. Last year Shorts brought out the Tucano plane, recently there were sales of aircraft to British Midland Airways Ltd., and the contract for the auxiliary oiler replenishment vessel went to Harland and Wolff last week. We trust that other firms in Northern Ireland, with the same enterprise and backing of the work force, will gain such contracts here, in Northern Ireland, and throughout the world.
    Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Let us see whether the Minister expects this question. In considering the factors that are likely to have a favourable effect on employment in the Province, will the Government not overlook the importance of transport action between the Province and the mainland, particularly the urgency of ensuring that use is made of the roll-on/roll-off facilities for transport in the port of Warrenpoint?
    Dr. Boyson: I know that the right hon. Gentleman is rightly concerned about Warrenpoint and its facilities. I also know that, in so far as we are on the periphery of the European market, we require all the transportation if we are to sell goods, particularly heavy goods, in the question of that market. I take totally what the right hon. Gentleman has said.
    Mr. Skinner: The hon. Gentleman will never make Secretary of State for Education and Science with grammar like that.
    Dr. Boyson: I am glad that I have at least one supporter.
    I have another point to make. At 2 pm today, unfortunately for Northern Ireland, Rothmans announced that it is pulling out of everything but cigar manufacturing there, which means 800 more unemployed. I know that that will be deplored throughout the House.
    Mr. Michael Brown: On that point, does my hon. Friend agree that that makes so important the representations that we made to the Treasury about the level of tobacco taxation, because we foresaw what eventually could occur as a result of the increase in tobacco duty?
    Dr. Boyson: My hon. Friend's point was mentioned in the press releases issued by Rothmans and by the Department. There has been a fall in the demand for tobacco because of the social and health consequences of smoking. There has also been an increase of imports into the United Kingdom market.
    Mr. Mallon: Can the Minister give any assessment of the damage that has been done to employment prospects for the people of the north of Ireland by the recent form of Fascism centering on a new approach—a Bible in one hand and a petrol bomb in the other?
    Dr. Boyson: There is no doubt that the hon. Gentleman's point is highly relevant to employment, and even more so to unemployment in Northern Ireland. Anyone considering investing there or expanding his factories would be worried about the political climate. The best thing that could be done for industrial advancement in Northern Ireland would be to achieve a political settlement, especially in relation to the hon. Gentleman's point, so that people can come to the Province knowing that there will be continuity of production.
    Mr. Archer: Given the further likely effects on unemployment of the Rothmans' decision, remembering that the Anglo-Irish accord has been operating for nearly six months, and that one of the topics promised for consideration by the conference was the economic and social development of areas that have suffered most severely, what measures have resulted from the accord? If the answer is none, when may the unemployed expect to see such measures?
    Dr. Boyson: After the accord, America promised extra help and investment to provide jobs on both sides of the border, especially in difficult areas. Conversations have continued since the accord, but the Americans have not yet reached a final decision. If America agreed to help industrial advance on both sides of the border, it would be of great help.

    Enterprise Ulster
    Mr. Cashasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if, following the recent review, he will make a statement on the longer-term future of Enterprise Ulster.
    Dr. Boyson: The life of Enterprise Ulster is being extended for a period of five years, subject to its achievement of agreed reductions in average job costs. Its
    1080
    performance will be considered in periodic reviews which are undertaken of the programme of labour market intervention measures for Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Cash: Will the improvements in cost-effectiveness expected of Enterprise Ulster have any effect on its ability to undertake major projects in the future?
    Dr. Boyson: I am glad to reassure my hon. Friend on that matter. Enterprise Ulster is highly regarded by all communities in Northern Ireland. It is one of the best links that we have to bring people together in Northern Ireland. There is no doubt that a major building programme such as that in the Belfast view—[Interruption.] The view is very nice in Belfast, but I meant to say "zoo". Enclosures and other buildings have been constructed at the zoo. Similarly, the Ulster American folk park has been built. Other building work will be carried out in the future by Enterprise Ulster.
    Mr. Hume: In the light of the Minister's remarks about the outstanding record of Enterprise Ulster—a record commented upon favourably by many independent organisations, including the European Commission—does he not believe that, with so much unemployment in Northern Ireland, there is a strong case for expanding the role of Enterprise Ulster?
    Dr. Boyson: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. I shall contact Enterprise Ulster to see whether the scheme can be expanded. The previous agreement was for a three-year period. In this case the period will be extended to five years, which shows the Government's confidence in the organisation.

    Paramilitary Organisations
    Ms. Clare Shortasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is his assessment of the scale of Loyalist paramilitary organisations and the danger they represent.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Nicholas Scott): The Government and the security forces keep under careful review all organisations which are paramilitary in character or associated with the use of violence. The security forces will continue to deal even-handedly under the law with threats to security or public order from all such organisations.
    Ms. Short: I am sorry that the Minister has not answered my question, but has merely said that the Government will keep everything under review. Is he aware that Northern Ireland is massively armed—overwhelmingly so in the Loyalist community—with gun licences approved by the British Government? Will the Government undertake to review the many gun licences that are issued and call in some of them?
    Mr. Scott: Firearms, shotguns, and, indeed, air rifles are under much stricter control in Northern Ireland than in Great Britain. If the hon. Lady has any particular suggestions for further restrictions in the law I shall obviously look at them, but at the moment we seek to exercise tight control in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Hayes: Will my hon. Friend pay a particular tribute to Sir John Hermon for a courageous and sensible speech last week, when he made it clear that he and his

    1081
    officers will deal ruthlessly with that tiny minority of officers in the Province who behave in a party political manner?
    Mr. Scott: I echo my hon. Friend's remarks, but the grounds for praising Sir John Hermon go much wider than that. He is a splendid leader of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and has been largely responsible for the progress that it has made in recent years.
    Mr. Duffy: Does the Minister agree that if Unionist parliamentary representatives do not stand up to their back-room gunmen, the shameful statement of the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) outside Belfast city hall on Easter Monday, that democracy has been done to death, will indeed be fulfilled, not, as he went on to say, by Margaret Thatcher in Downing street, but in Northern Ireland by Unionist parliamentary representatives?
    Mr. Scott: I regret all such actions and statements that seem to encourage unconstitutional or unlawful action. However, with the prospect of talks between my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State with Unionist leaders, I hope that constitutional action will now be pursued.
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Does my hon. Friend agree that to deal effectively with the paramilitary organisations it is essential to have an effective extradition treaty with America? Does he also agree that for America to reject the new extradition treaty would be to deal a body blow to Anglo-American relations and call into question whether that country is seriously interested in suppressing terrorism?
    Mr. Scott: The Government are bending every effort to secure the passage of the supplementary treaty on extradition with the United States. I do not believe that either the House or British public opinion would understand a failure to deliver that treaty through the Senate.

    Assembly Elections
    Mr. Bellasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he proposes to announce the date of the Northern Ireland Assembly elections.
    The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Tom King): We want to discuss the future of the Assembly with the Northern Ireland political parties. In reaching a decision on new elections we shall clearly have to consider whether the Assembly will serve a useful purpose.
    Mr. Bell: I note the Secretary of State's remarks, but why are salaries continually being drawn by those elected to the Northern Ireland Assembly and those elected to take their seats in that Assembly when no work is being done, not even the scrutinising of legislation by way of Orders in Council for this House? Is that in the interests of the people of Northern Ireland and in the interests of democracy in Northern Ireland?
    Mr. King: The frequent complaint that is delivered by some of the absentee Members of this House is that the voice of Northern Ireland—or the Unionist voice—has not been listened to, and that is at the very time that they are failing to discharge their proper functions and to use one of the vehicles that could be most effective in enabling
    1082
    them to put forward their views. I note what the hon. Gentleman said. There is obviously great force in what he has said, and we are looking at the matter carefully.
    Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is little purpose in holding further elections if the SDLP fight those elections but refuse to attend the Assembly? As they have already achieved the Anglo-Irish treaty, does it not behove them now to assist in the internal government of Northern Ireland? If they refuse to come to the Assembly and to give a promise that they will come to the Assembly, will my right hon. Friend dismiss from his mind any thoughts of calling any further elections?
    Mr. King: My hon. Friend will have listened carefully to my original answer. As the Assembly will reach the end of its natural life in mid-October, there is no point in perpetuating that, or even continuing as long as that, if it is failing to fulfil any useful function. Therefore, I agree with my hon. Friend's other comment about the position of the SDLP. I wish that the Unionists would put the SDLP to the test, pick up the remarks of the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume), challenge him with that, and then see whether it is possible to obtain a new Assembly on a proper basis.
    Mr. Flannery: It is not a political reality that the monority community has no faith in the Assembly? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the disucssions that will take place there will be with people who, for endless years, and in the future if they can, will carry on discussions which will keep them permanently in command and leave nothing for the minority community?
    Mr. King: That is the gospel of despair that will lead the Province nowhere. The Government are determined to build on common ground between men of good will. If the hon. Gentleman believes that that is impossible, the future is bleak for the Province. I believe that effort must be made. The Government are determined to see whether it can be achieved, but obviously it needs considerable co-operation for it to be possible.
    Mr. John Mark Taylor: Does my right hon. Friend accept that some of us were disappointed and disturbed by his first answer? If we are at all serious about devolving powers to Northern Ireland, as the Assembly represents a good spectrum of elected opinion in Northern Ireland, should he not continue his efforts to make it work and make the parties participate in it?
    Mr. King: I know that my hon. Friend will be aware of some of the behaviour that is currently taking place within the Assembly and the fact that it is failing to discharge its proper functions. I would certainly agree wholeheartedly if we could achieve a basis on which the proper objectives of the Assembly could be achieved.
    Mr. Mallon: Will the Secretary of State confirm that among those who have found it impossible to continue to attend the Assembly are his predecessor, now the Secretary of State for the Home Department, and the alliance party, and that non-attendance is not confined simply to the SDLP?
    Mr. King: I am not clear about the hon. Gentleman's first point. My right hon. Friend did attend the Assembly, and Ministers were always ready to attend. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate—his hon. Friend the Member

    1083
    for Foyle (Mr. Hume) made this point clear as well—that my understanding is that his party is prepared to become involved and would wish to take part in the new Assembly.

    Tourism
    Mr. Leighasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what has been the response from the tourist industry to the announcement of the revised accommodation grant scheme in February.
    Dr. Boyson: There has been an excellent response from the industry. As at 25 April 1986 there were 176 applications for grant-aid, which include proposals for the upgrading and improvement of 435 hotel bedrooms, and the construction of six new hotels, 21 new guest houses and 21 self-catering developments.
    Mr. Leigh: How many jobs will be created by the scheme?
    Dr. Boyson: While that building is taking place, I would estimate that about 200 people will find extra employment in the construction industry. When the hotels are completed there will be about 100 more people employed and there will be a spin-off for all the shops in the areas around.

    Political Parties (Talks)
    Mr. Altonasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what action Her Majesty's Government propose to take in the light of correspondence between the Prime Minister and Northern Ireland political parties to hold round table talks with them.
    Mr. Tom King: We hope that it will be possible shortly to start exploratory discussions with the two Unionists leaders to see whether a framework for dialogue can be established as suggested by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in her letter of 16 April.
    Mr. Alton: I welcome the Secretary of State's answer. Does he not think that, given the willingness of the SDLP and the alliance party of Northern Ireland to enter into discussions without pre-conditions, the time has come to fix a date for those talks to begin?
    Mr. King: In view of the position in which the two major Unionist parties find themselves, the first objective is to see whether it is possible for such a framework to be established. Obviously, thereafter, it becomes a question of the involvement of other parties in possible further discussions.

    Lignite
    Mr. Jacksonasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when work under the lignite prospecting licences announced in 1985 is likely to begin.
    Dr. Boyson: Legal formalities for the issue of the three licences should be completed shortly, and I understand that the companies hope to start work this month.
    Mr. Jackson: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Will he expand on the benefits of lignite development for Northern Ireland?
    Dr. Boyson: I hope that there will be benefits from what we are doing. The immediate advantage is that it will cheapen electricity production. That is why we are
    1084
    considering building a lignite-fired generating station at Crumlin. It should make electricity costs for industry and for homes in Northern Ireland equal to the lowest in this country and in Europe.
    Mr. Foulkes: Will the Minister tell the House what effect the development of lignite will have on the supply of Ayrshire coal to power stations in Northern Ireland? In particular, will he confirm that it is planned that the Kilroot power station will continue to burn Ayrshire coal? Will he also tell us why the decision has been made in the short term to burn oil at the Belfast West power station—a very unwise decision—when the supply of Ayrshire coal can be maintained and guaranteed in the long term? Will the Northern Ireland Office hold discussions with the Coal Board about the use of Ayrshire coal in Northern Ireland and the devastating effect it would have on Ayrshire if the supply of coal to Northern Ireland were not continued?
    Dr. Boyson: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concern about coal sales from Ayrshire to Northern Ireland. The conversion of Kilroot from oil to coal burning is going ahead. The contract has been given to the NEI. We shall have to weigh the question of conversion at other power stations. Much depends upon the price at which coal can be bought. Electricity prices in Northern Ireland have continually been among the highest in the United Kingdom. As the price of oil is falling, and if coal is to be bought for Northern Ireland, we shall have to consider the price at which it can be bought from the Coal Board.
    Mr. Hume: Is the Minister aware of the public concern that has been expressed by many residents in the Lough Neagh area about the possibility of damage being done to the environment by lignite mining? As the environmental quality of that area is the highest in Europe, does he not think that a public inquiry is necessary before a licence to mine lignite in the Lough Neagh area is granted?
    Dr. Boyson: This is one of those times when I can answer yes. I agree entirely with the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume). We have granted a prospecting only licence for two years. There is no guarantee that a mining licence will follow. I have met objectors from East Tyrone in my office in Northern Ireland and I have read all the material that they have published. We have given a straightforward commitment—which has the agreement of my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for the environment in Northern Ireland—that if a mining application is made by any company, a public inquiry will be held.
    Mr. Archer: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that the danger envisaged by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) applies to the prospecting itself? As Lough Neagh is listed in the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands as a site of international importance, have the Government given notice of their proposal to grant licences for prospecting, and have they made any assessment of its effect upon wildlife?
    Dr. Boyson: Before we were prepared to give the three licences for prospecting, we took advice from wherever it was available and we listened to all the objections. I have been assured that prospecting can go ahead without any damage to the East Tyrone area or to the level of Lock

    1085
    Neagh. If prospecting had been a threat to the level of Lock Neagh, or to its boundaries, we should have had to think very deeply before granting the licences.

    Security
    Mr. Yeoasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about the security position.
    Mr. Proctorasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the current security situation.
    Mr. King: Since I last answered questions in the House on 27 March, two civilians and two members of the security forces have died in incidents arising from the security situation in the Province. The efforts of the security forces are continuing to yield results. Since the beginning of the year, a total of 264 people have been charged with serious offences and 95 weapons, 10,500 rounds of ammunition and 2,460 lb of explosives have been recovered. The House will wish to note that seven of these weapons and 1,240 lb of explosives have been recovered in the last six days.
    Mr. Yeo: I am glad that my right hon. Friend is able to report such progress. Will he take this opportunity to make clear to the House, and above all to those extremists in Northern Ireland who are resorting to violence in their efforts to undermine the Anglo-Irish agreement, that the Government have no intention of being deflected from their purposes in signing that agreement, even if there were to be a regrettable, temporary deterioration in security?
    Mr. King: One of the criticisms by some Unionists about the Anglo-Irish agreement that I find least acceptable is the implication that in some way the security forces will lessen their determination to fight terrorism. The figures that I have given to the House and the evidence of the last few days should make clear to everybody our determination to root out terrorism from wherever it comes. Yes, we have had successes in the last few days, but those very successes and the amount of bombs involved show clearly the scale of the threat that we still face.
    Mr. Proctor: In order to reduce tension and improve security in Northern Ireland, will my right hon. Friend put intense pressure on the Government of the Republic of Eire to include in their forthcoming referendum on divorce a question about the repeal of articles 1 and 2 of the Republic's constitution? Will my right hon. Friend accept that it is no answer to say that we should not interfere in the internal affairs of the Republic?
    Mr. King: I must admit that there is so much talk about articles 2 and 3 that I cannot remember what article 1 is about. I think my hon. Friend means articles 2 and 3. [Interruption.] I shall certainly study his request about article 1. I shall need to refresh my memory on it. I am on record publicly as saying that articles 2 and 3 do not contribute to better relations between the Republic and Northern Ireland. I hope that it will be possible at some future date for changes to be made. I certainly understand why my hon. Friend raises the matter.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: How is the security situation in Northern Ireland helped by the availability of kidnap
    1086
    insurance? I have here a letter written by Sedgewick UK Ltd., a City of London insurance company, offering kidnap and extortion insurance to a prominent citizen in Northern Ireland. What does the Secretary of State intend to do about that sort of thing? Does he intend to turn a blind eye, or, if he is committed to the restoration of peace in Northern Ireland, does he accept that he has a duty to intervene and prevent the sale of these policies on the open market?
    Mr. King: I would be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would send me a copy of that letter so that I may study it. He knows that it is not an offence in the form of insurance, but it is an offence in Northern Ireland to pay ransom money to any proscribed organisation. This matter goes much wider than the question the hon. Gentleman asks. The whole question of rackets, of extortion, of protection is something on which we should take the strongest possible action.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. Friend accept that Protestant—originated violence in Ulster is relevant to Scotland, where there is a lot of sympathetic support, where caches of weapons have been discovered on numerous occasions and where many prosecutions have taken place? If he does accept that, what consultations is he having with the Secretary of State for Scotland to ensure that the violence does not come across to Scotland?
    Mr. King: On these issues I keep in close touch with my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. The points made by my hon. Friend are correct, but perhaps he will forgive me if I do not go further into the matter at this stage. I assure him that his point is well taken.
    Mr. Soames: In the light of the Anglo-Irish agreement, has my right hon. Friend noticed any improvement in cross-border security?
    Mr. King: My hon. Friend will have noted recent events. I do not wish to go into detail about them, but I am satisfied that we are progressively developing closer co-operation on security and that this will undoubtedly be to the benefit of all those who wish to see a reduction in terrorism and its eventual elimination.

    Anglo-Irish Agreement
    Mr. Lathamasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will make a statement on the operation to date of the Anglo-Irish agreement.
    Mr. Winnickasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on meetings with the Government of the Irish Republic which have occurred arising from the Anglo-Irish agreement.
    Mr. Nicholas Bakerasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about progress in implementing the provisions of the Anglo-Irish agreement.
    Mr. Tom King: Since the Anglo-Irish agreement came into force on 29 November, the Intergovernmental Conference has met four times and there has been one meeting of the legal sub-group. A joint statement was issued after each meeting, which gives an account of the issues discussed. I have placed these in the Library.
    Mr. Latham: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. I wish that there was more than one Ulster Unionist here to listen to it. Is my right hon. Friend aware that since we live in 1986, not 1689, many of us hope that more could be done by the Churches to promote intercommunal reconciliation, which is implicit in the Anglo-Irish agreement?
    Mr. King: I endorse to the full my hon. Friend's opening comments. It is a tragedy that Unionist Members of the House of Commons are not present to play their part, with the exception, to which I pay tribute, of the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell). I certainly do look to closer co-operation between the Churches. Undoubtedly many Church leaders play an outstanding role in that respect. I should like to encourage that process even further.
    Mr. Winnick: Is it not important for the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister to make it absolutely clear that, no matter what sort of intimidation there is in the Province, and what action is taken by the bully boys and the rest, the Anglo-Irish agreement will stand? If that is made clear, perhaps the time will come when the Unionist Members of Parliament will return to their seats here.
    Mr. King: The position has been made absolutely clear, by both my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and myself on several occasions. We remain absolutely clear about that.
    Mr. Nicholas Baker: Is my right hon Friend aware that many of us who are strong supporters of the Union are also believers in the Anglo-Irish agreement? Does he agree that one of the prospects, if the agreement were to fail, would be an internationalisation of the Northern Ireland problem, which, with the greater interest of perhaps the United States in an adverse way, and the United Nations, would spell disaster for Northern Ireland?
    Mr. King: If the agreement were to fail because of intimidation and the sort of violence and obstruction that we have seen in certain quarters, that would be extremely damaging to the Union and would be catastrophic for the image and prospects of Northern Ireland overseas. We face many difficult problems. My hon. Friend the Minister of State referred to the difficult economic news coming out of Northern Ireland today. In that situation, we need maximum co-operation among all the people there. I believe that the Anglo-Irish agreement can contribute to that, if only Unionists are prepared to give it a chance.
    Mr. Mallon: Now that there is consensus across the board in Northern Ireland that the use of plastic bullets and of the uncorroborated evidence of supergrasses should be discontinued, would it not, in the Secretary of State's opinion, be advisable for the Anglo-Irish conference to deal with those matters?
    Mr. King: The hon. Gentleman's first point will arise shortly through another question on the Order paper, and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State will reply. With regard to the second point, the use of accomplice evidence is under discussion at the moment. My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General has commented on that practice. I understand the concern about it, but when we face terrorism there are real difficulties in making sure that we deal as effectively and fairly as we can with terrorist crimes.
    Mr. Gow: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that no date has been fixed for the next meeting of the Intergovernmental Conference at ministerial level? Will he explain to the House why he cannot say that future meetings of that conference will be held in London rather than Belfast, and why he considers it desirable that the secretariat should be sited in Northern Ireland and not in London?
    Mr. King: The answer to the first question is yes, Sir. In respect of the second question, it is not the practice to disclose the location of the conference, for reasons which my hon. Friend may understand. As to the third question, it is my belief that the secretariat is most usefully located in Belfast in order to discharge the work that it does.
    Mr. Alton: Will the Secretary of State make it clear to those in Northern Ireland who want to try to break the Anglo-Irish agreement that it is the democratic wish of all the major parties in the House that, however many marches, and however much intimidation or violence there may be over the next few months, we will not tolerate any watering down of the Anglo-Irish agreement?
    Mr. King: I have made absolutely clear my support for the Anglo-Irish agreement, but at the same time I have made it absolutely clear that this agreement is not designed to exclude the voice of Unionists from involvement in and contribution to the affairs of Northern Ireland, and that is what I wish to see.
    Mr. Peter Bruinvels: Now that we have the Anglo-Irish agreement, what additional measure does my right hon. Friend propose to protect the members of the RUC, their families and their homes from the attacks that they have suffered? What can he do to stop a number of members of the RUC requesting transfers to return from Northern Ireland to the rest of the United Kingdom?
    Mr. King: In respect of the latter point, I have to say that there is no evidence of this happening. I know that the RUC collectively is determined to combat and defeat attempts at intimidation. I know that the whole House will pay tribute to the courage of the RUC in the present difficult situation. I know also that the Chief Constable and the associations involved in representing members of the RUC are determined to stand together and take all necessary measures to defeat intimidation against them.

    Plastic and Rubber Bullets
    Mr. Canavanasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people have been killed or injured by the use of plastic or rubber bullets in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Scott: Since the introduction of rubber baton rounds in 1970, and plastic baton rounds in 1973, 15 people are believed to have died as a result of their use by the security forces in Northern Ireland. Since 17 March 1981, when records were first collated, 326 have allegedly been injured, all by plastic baton rounds.
    Mr. Canavan: Bearing in mind that most of the victims were children or young people, many of them innocent bystanders, who were killed, blinded, paralysed or suffered brain damage, and now especially since the tragic death of Keith White, the use of such lethal weapons has been rightly condemned by many people of the Unionist tradition as well as people of the Republican

    1089
    tradition, will the Government support my Bill next Wednesday to abolish this barbaric practice for ever from the whole of the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Scott: I shall certainly not support any legislation which takes away from the security forces in Northern Ireland a means of protection against the sustained and vicious rioting which they have had to endure over the period of these troubles. It may also be worth mentioning that the European Court of Human Rights has found that the use of baton rounds in Northern Ireland constitutes reasonable force.
    Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Can my hon. Friend say what other form of defence would be available to the security forces if baton rounds were eliminated?
    Mr. Scott: The short answer to my hon. Friend's question is that I know of no other means of protecting the security forces against rioting that would be as effective. Water cannon and CS gas have both proved to be ineffective. I know of no alternative to baton rounds at present.
    Mr. Parry: My question No. 27 on the Order Paper is similar to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan). I agree with the points that he made about the killing of innocent children and women, particularly the tragic death of Mrs Nora McCabe, and I fully support any demand in the House for the banning of these bullets.
    Mr. Scott: I regret every death that takes place in Northern Ireland. It is worth reminding the House that well over 2,000 people have lost their lives in the course of the troubles over the last 16 to 17 years. I think that it is up to those who complain about the use of baton rounds and who wish to have them removed to come forward with an alternative that would be as good and as effective in protecting the security forces against rioting.

    Long-term Unemployed Persons
    Mr. Neil Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what new measures are being introduced in Northern Ireland for the long-term unemployed.
    Dr. Boyson: On 26 March I announced a package of enterprise and employment measures for Northern Ireland, all of which, I hope, will be helpful to the long-term unemployed. These will include individual in-depth counselling interviews, short restart courses, a £20 weekly jobstart allowance and extra job places available in Enterprise Ulster and action for community employment schemes.
    Mr. Hamilton: My hon. Friend will agree, I am sure, that everybody who has the economic wellbeing of the Province at heart will welcome this imaginative package of measures. Can my hon. Friend give us any indication of how many job vacancies are filled every month in Northern Ireland?
    Dr. Boyson: I believe that about 9,000 people every month get jobs in Northern Ireland—coming from unemployment or from full-time education—and that something equivalent to the total number of long-term unemployed are placed in jobs every four months.

    Political Parties (Talks)
    Sir John Biggs-Davisonasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what discussions he has had with political leaders in the Province since the signature of the Anglo-Irish agreement.
    Mr. Tom King: I have met all the leaders of the major constitutional political parties in Northern Ireland at least once since 15 November—on a number of occasions in company with the Prime Minister. At all those meetings I have made it clear that the Government would welcome discussion about political development in Northern Ireland.
    Sir John Biggs-Davison: What are the Government doing to regain the consent of the governed? Since adequate pre-existing machinery for Anglo-Irish cooperation and consultation is present, would not a protracted period of silence from the Intergovernmental Conference be most welcome and helpful?
    Mr. King: My hon. Friend will be aware that in answer to an earlier question I said that I hoped there would shortly be discussions to see whether a framework for talks was possible. That is the most positive way forward, to see whether we can at last start talks to help regain the confidence to which my hon. Friend referred.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Tony Banksasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 1 May.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher):This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I shall be leaving for Korea and for the economic summit in Tokyo.
    Mr. Banks: On this glorious international day of Labour, will the Prime Minister find time to study the terms of the petition presented at No. 10 Downing street last Saturday by Labour council candidates from the London borough of Newham? The petition showed that this year £5·5 million of rate support grant has been taken from Newham, making a total loss of £74 million since 1980, plus £11 million for the cost of the abolition of the Greater London council. Newham is the second most deprived local authority area in England, so why do the Government refuse to give us partnership status? When the Prime Minister returns from. Tokyo, will she accept an invitation from me to come to Newham and see the effect of Government policies on the real East Enders of London?
    The Prime Minister: London as a whole will benefit enormously from the abolition of the GLC.
    Mr. Lathamasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 1 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Latham: At the Tokyo summit, will my right hon. Friend press for the fullest possible co-operation and for the pooling of all scientific knowledge between East and

    1091
    West which will help to prevent any further disaster, such as that at the Russian nuclear reactor? Will she say that the only way to build confidence in the verification of nuclear weapons disarmament is if we deal effectively with civil catastrophes?
    The Prime Minister: I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend. These matters go way beyond the borders of any country, and must be dealt with on a global scale. I hope that all the details of that terrible accident at Chernobyl will be reported to the International Atomic Energy Agency so that we may all profit from it, and that inspectors will be able to go in to deduce precisely what happened. I also agree with my hon. Friend's deduction on the other point. Knowing something of what has happened in the Soviet Union and how difficult it is to get facts and assessments, it should make us wary in any arms control negotiations that we must be absolutely meticulous to get specific, practical and strict verification of any agreement.
    Mr. Kinnock: Now that the prison officers have suspended their industrial action, thereby giving further evidence of their good will and sense of responsibility, why are the Government adding stubbornness to their original folly by refusing to engage in talks with them?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman knows that after questions there will be a statement on this matter. I am pleased that the prison officers have called off their action. Many of us were appalled that they ever took it, and I think that it has been salutary for them. I should like to thank the governors who stood at their posts, the police officers who also stood at their posts, and the police, who backed up the whole service.
    Mr. Kinnock: Is the Prime Minister aware that the governors have strong sympathy with the conditions and difficulties which the prison officers face daily, and that the rise in the number of prisoners vastly exceeds the rise in the number of officers—[Interruption.] Yes. The ratio is 5,000:2,500. I know the figures. Is the Prime Minister aware that, unless the Government show a more rational attitude, what we have seen thus far, as a consequence of industrial action, will in any event come about simply because of the pressures in the prisons?
    The Prime Minister: May I point out to the right hon. Gentleman what the Government have done to increase the facilities of the prison service. We implemented the report of the May committee on the prison service, which was established by a Labour Home Secretary. We ended the Labour Government's neglect of prison buildings by instituting the largest prison building programme in history. Spending on prison buildings is up by 400 per cent. We have increased spending on the prison service by 85 per cent. in real terms. On the specific point that the right hon. Gentleman made, and made wrongly, we have increased the number of prison officers by 3,000—that is 18 per cent.—at a time when the number of prisoners has gone up by 12 per cent.
    Mr. Kinnock: Following that litany, can the Prime Minister tell me why Mr. Sidney Powell, the secretary of the governors' organisation, should say that the 12 per cent. population increase mentioned by the Prime Minister meant an additional 5,000 prisoners, and that the 18 per cent. increase in staff was about 2,500 officers? Will the Prime Minister come clean at least on this?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman confirms my assertion that the ratio of prison officers to prisoners has greatly improved.
    Mr. Nicholas Baker: At the Tokyo summit, will my right hon. Friend impress upon Japan the importance of her undertaking and maintaining a greater share of responsibility towards the Third world than she does at present?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, but we shall also be pressing upon Japan the fact that when she competes for contracts in the Third world she must also compete on a fair basis, and on a fair basis for credit as well.
    Dr. Owen: Will the Prime Minister ask Sir Frank Layfield, who is currently writing his report on the Sizewell inquiry, to take full account of the disaster that has occurred in the Soviet Union? We have waited ma by years for this inquiry, and it would be very helpful for making final decisions if Sir Frank Layfield was able to take as much evidence as possible from the Soviet Union.
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that the report of an inquiry is the report of the conclusions from the evidence given at the inquiry, and it cannot go further and include matters which have arisen since the inquiry. He will be the first to be aware that the reactor in the Soviet Union is totally different from any kind of reactor here. He will also be aware that the record of safety in design, operation, maintenance and inspection in this country is second to none. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will think it right to support the furtherance of such an excellent nuclear industry.
    Mr. Viggers: Is my right hon. Friend aware that we are proud of the fact that she will be this country's representative at the Tokyo summit? Does she agree that the greatest single boost to world trade would be a reduction of trade barriers and a promotion of genuine free trade throughout the world? Does my right hon. Friend further agree that the reduction in oil prices provides a good background for such a new initiative, and will she propose such an initiative in Tokyo?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend that we need to reduce trade barriers. Between a third and a half of world trade is subject to some form of protection. For some time many of us have felt that it is time we had a new GATT round so that we can jointly get rid of or reduce some of the barriers. This is meeting with a good deal of hostility in some quarters, but we shall nevertheless continue to persevere with that line, both at the Tokyo summit and beyond.
    Mr. Pavittasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Pavitt: Is the Prime Minister not concerned and distressed by the fact that, as a result of her policies, we now have a record number of over 100,000 homeless people? Last year, an extra twist in the spiral meant a further 13 per cent. In the Conservative-controlled London borough of Brent my ratepayers are now paying £5,400 a day, week in, week out, for bed and breakfast and temporary accommodation, and taxpayers are paying a further £5,400 through the DHSS. Will the Prime Minister follow the good example set by one of her previous

    1093
    Ministers, the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow), and spend three hours with me looking at the tragic families living in sleazy conditions so she can see for herself what is happening to family life in my area?
    The Prime Minister: May I point out to the hon. Gentleman that there are 100,000 empty council houses in England and Wales, and that more than 30,000 of them are in London? A considerable number of these have been empty for over a year. It might be a good idea if some of them were brought back into use. Then there would then be less need for bed-and-breakfast accommodation.
    Mr. David Atkinsonasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 1 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Atkinson: Has my right hon. Friend seen yesterday's ruling by the European Court of Justice against the price fixing of European air fares? Does that not at last pave the way for competition to reduce the level of fares to the level long enjoyed in the United States of America? Will the Government hold discussions with Lord King about the lead that British Airways should set?
    The Prime Minister: We were very pleased with the decision of the European Court of Justice yesterday. It confirmed the view that we have held for a long time, which is that competition also applies to air fares. The people of this country owe a debt of gratitude to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport for his strenuous efforts, which have already reduced air fares. It is further backing of our belief in competition instead of rigging the market.
    Mrs. Dunwoodyasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 1 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Lady to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: As the amendment on the Order Paper concerning carers, which stands in the Prime Minister's name today, is almost identical to that tabled by the Opposition, would she be kind enough to tell us why it omits only two points? I refer to cash to support the carers and any mention of invalid care allowance.
    The Prime Minister: I would be glad to place this Government's record on caring beside that of the Labour Government at any time, and I shall be especially glad to do so when the time comes.
    Sir Bernard Braine: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, despite the lack of information from the Soviet Union about the disaster that has seriously affected its nearest neighbours, the Poles at least are taking all sorts of measures to protect their children'? Will my right hon. Friend ensure that if any request for help with medicaments and special foods comes from that country, we will not hesitate to give it urgently and without any conditions?
    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for raising that point. If any requests come we shall, of course, look at them with the greatest sympathy and do our level best to get help there as soon as possible. We have offered the Soviet Union help on all technical aspects connected with the accident, but so far it has not seen fit to take it up.
    Mr. Rogersasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 1 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Rogers: On 14 April the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy said that nuclear energy was the safest, cleanest and cheapest form of electricity generation. Which of those criteria does the Prime Minister believe to be the most important?
    The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman knows—he must be struggling very hard for a question—all those criteria are very important. I hope that he is proud of the record of our nuclear industry and of those who operate it.
    Mr. Onslow: When my right hon. Friend is invited to draw comparisons between Western and Soviet technology, will she bear in mind that the fact that the Russians failed to create their own Concordski does not mean that Concorde is unsafe?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend's question demonstrates most neatly the difference of approach between the two countries. We place great stress on the need for safety in the latest technology.
    Mr. Winnickasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 1 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Winnick: Can the Prime Minister give any explanation of why 1986 has been such a wretched year for her? I am afraid that there is far worse to come.
    The Prime Minister: I am still smiling and looking forward to my seventh anniversary, which will be about a halfway house.
    Mr. Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend agree that what is lacking with civil nuclear power installations is an internationally accepted safety standard? Will she seek to encourage such a standard and its application in Russia, Great Britain and everywhere else in the world?
    The Prime Minister: The accident in the Soviet Union has stressed that safety must be an international matter. We shall pursue this vigorously through the appropriate agency.
    Mr. Lofthouseasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 1 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Lofthouse: Is the Prime Minister satisfied that a nuclear accident similar to that which occurred in the Soviet Union could not occur in this country? If not, will she assure the House that the Government will discontinue their interest in pressurised water reactors?
    The Prime Minister: No, I can give no such assurance. I know that the hon. Gentleman has a specific interest in coal, but there are other people who work in the electricity and the nuclear industry, and who work very effectively. The industry was started in this country. It was one of our own technologies, and I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman, too, could be proud of its safety record and the way we have handled our nuclear industry, in terms of safety and economy.

Business of the House
3.31 pm
Mr. Neil Kinnock: May I ask the Leader of the House to state the business for next week?
The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
TUESDAY 6 MAY—Until Seven o'clock, there will be a debate on the situation in Her Majesty's prisons on a motion for the Adjournment of the House. Consideration in Committee of the Finance Bill.
WEDNESDAY 7 MAY—Consideration in Committee of the Finance Bill.
Remaining stages of the British Shipbuilders (Borrowing Powers) Bill.
THURSDAY 8 MAY—There will be a debate on crime prevention on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 9 MAY—Private Members' Bills
MONDAY 12 MAY—Until Seven o'clock, Private Members' motions.
Motion on the Hong Kong (British Nationality) Order.
Mr. Kinnock: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. Will he ensure that the House is kept fully informed of any further details which the Government obtain about the consequences of the Chernobyl disaster? I am sure that he agrees that it would be appropriate to have a debate in the near future on the issues raised and highlighted by this most serious incident.
I thank the Leader of the House for responding constructively to our representations for an early debate on the Government's dispute with the prison officers. In the light of the emergency debate next Tuesday, will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to ensure that there will be discussion about the manner in which the orders for the Finance Bill are taken? When is the defence White Paper likely to published? Will the right hon. Gentleman provide time for the debate on foreign affairs which I have requested on several occasions?
I welcome next week's debate on crime prevention and express the hope that the Home Secretary will come forward in that debate with proposals for aiding elderly and poorer people with the cost of making their homes more secure and, similarly, for supporting local authorities which wish to make additional provision for crime prevention in their streets and housing estates.
I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman and all hon. Members would wish to pay tribute to Miss Roseanne O'Reilly, who retires today after working for almost 40 years in the Library. As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, for a long time she has been a most devoted servant of the House and has given Members of every party the most valued service in their requests for information.
Mr. Biffen: If I answer the questions in reverse order, I shall have the opportunity to open with my congratulations to Miss O'Reilly on her retirement and to echo what I am sure is the feeling throughout the House that she should have a most happy retirement, knowing that she will take with her the good wishes and appreciation of hon. Members.
As to next Thursday's debate on crime prevention, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department is in his place and will have heard the
1096
comments on the matters that may be canvassed during that debate. I accept that we need to turn to foreign affairs for a debate. I hope that that matter will be considered through the usual channels in the reasonably near future.
I understand that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence intends to publish the defence White Paper on 12 May.
Of course, I understand that the rearrangement, at late notice, of the business for the Committee stage of the Finance Bill puts a question mark over the order that had been chosen. It would be appropriate if that matter were considered through the usual channels.
I take note of what the right hon. Gentleman said about the importance of keeping the House informed of any consequences of the nuclear power station disaster in the Soviet Union. That is what we shall do.
Sir Fergus Montgomery: I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the points put to him last week by the Leader of the Opposition about trying to attract American tourists to Britain and their anxieties about terrorist attacks. Is my right hon. Friend aware that, apparently, some people have been told by the State Department that they should not travel to Britain? Is not that a disgraceful line for that department to take? Exactly what have the Government done to impress upon the American Administration the safety of the Americans who come to this country? If that has not been done, why not?
On the debate on Monday week on the Hong Kong (British Nationality) Order, will my right hon. Friend say why we had such an unsatisfactory reply last week by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary? Is my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House aware that many of us are unhappy about the way in which the Indian minority are being treated in Hong Kong and that some of us are not prepared to support the Government on that issue unless changes are made?
Mr. Biffen: I simply do not accept that the reply which my hon. Friend found unsatisfactory was necessarily unsatisfactory to many of my other hon. Friends. That matter can be argued in substance when the motion is considered on Monday 12 May.
I have no knowledge about the United States State Department advising Americans not to visit this country. Of course, I shall refer the matter to my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary, because I agree with my hon. Friend that it would be most offensive if such assertions were made. My hon. Friend will have his opportunity on Wednesday, when my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary will be taking questions, to make his points directly to my right hon. and learned Friend.
Mr. David Alton: Following the assurances that the right hon. Gentleman has already given, will he confirm that if there are any signs that the students who return from Minsk are adversely affected by radiation an immediate statement will be made to the House? Why were not the orders for the Nuclear Industry Radioactive Waste Executive site laid during April? Will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that there will be a full debate on the future of the nuclear industry in Britain?
Mr. Biffen: On the question about students returning from the Soviet Union, clearly my statement was a general one. The specific instances will be considered in the context of what I have said.
On the question of NIREX, it might be helpful if the hon. Gentleman recollected that I was pressed on that point last week by my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown). I have written to my hon. Friend saying that it will be the Government's intention to have a general debate on the policy of nuclear waste disposal. After that, the special development order will be laid before the House. If the order is prayed against, there will be a separate debate on that.
Mr. Tony Marlow: As my right hon. Friend is always totally frank with the House and has a great understanding of European issues, will he confirm that our abatement is sacrosanct against the European budget and was agreed at Fountainebleau and that there is no requirement for the House to agree to a supplementary budget to ensure that we get it?
Mr. Biffen: I agree that I have a degree of innocence, but I hope that it is not carried to the extent suggested by my hon. Friend. Of course, I shall look at my hon. Friend's second point. I should prefer to make a considered judgment.
Mr. Leo Abse: I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the early-day motion which has already been signed by more than 90 hon. Members on both sides of the House and which relates to family courts.
[That this House welcomes the establishment of the Family Courts Campaign to promote the early implementation of family courts, following the support for family courts recently expressed by the Law Society, the Association of County Councils, the Association of Directors of Social Services and many other bodies; welcomes the recommendations of the report of the Matrimonial Causes Procedure Committee, particularly those relating to the establishment of conciliation in matrimonial proceedings; notes with concern that the report by the Law Commission on Family Law, Illegitimacy, has yet to be implemented; further notes that the joint study set up in July 1984 by the Lord Chancellor and the Secretary of State for the Home Department to reexamine the idea of a unified family court, and study the resources implications in terms of finance, manpower and accommodation is due to be published shortly; regrets that this study has been so long delayed; and urges the Lord Chancellor and the Secretary of State for the Home Department to come forward with proposals for legislation at the earliest opportunity, following the publication of their report and their subsequent consultation on the most appropriate model for implementation.]
As it is expected that next week the Lord Chancellor will publish a report on family courts, may we have an assurance that we shall have a debate on the report so that the House can decide what its options are and so that the issue of family courts is not consigned as has happened to other reports, to the graveyard of Whitehall social legislation?
Mr. Biffen: I notice the anxiety of the hon. Gentleman. He will recollect that this matter was raised during business questions last week. I do not think that I can go beyond the answer that I gave then, but I take note of the hon. Gentleman's further comments.
Mr. David Mudd: Will my right hon. Friend consider at a very early date instigating a debate on regional development grants in the light of the suggestion in today's edition of the Western Morning News that at the very least the Department of Trade and Industry has sought deliberately to misinterpret European Community policy in this matter; alternatively, has sought to use its presumed interpretation to swing support from the very needy areas such as Devon and Cornwall to the west midlands; or has actually used the new policy to cut back on aid to areas that most need it? I ask my right hon. Friend to consider this as a matter of urgency since one Cornish tin mine may well close tomorrow and the other four within three months from today.
Mr. Biffen: I am sure that my hon. Friend will understand at once that I cannot accept the interpretation of either the judgment or motive of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry contained in that important west country newspaper, but I understand the great significance of the issue, particularly in view of the current state of the tin industry, and I will draw it to the attention of my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Gerald Bermingham: The Leader of the House will recall that on previous occasions I have asked for a debate on the standardisation and implementation of building regulations, particularly with respect to the use of glass in buildings. As these new regulations have not yet been published, and as it seems that we shall see no sign of them in the near future, perhaps the Leader of the House will find time for a debate in the House in order to bring some pressure to bear or, the Secretary of State for the Environment.
Mr. Biffen: The most sensible immediate course would be for me to draw to the attention of my right hon. Friend the point that the hon. Gentleman makes, and this I will do.
Mr. Jonathan Aitken: Since the Channel Tunnel Bill seems to have won the banana skin of the week trophy for violating the Standing Orders of the House, can my right hon. Friend shed any light on the Government's plans for this marooned item of legislation? In particular, can he indicate whether it is really wise to ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry or his parliamentary counsel to parade in front of the Standing Orders Committee, asking for a dispensation for the unfortunate errors that have occurred? Would it not be much wiser simply to give the petitioners of Kent adequate time within the original limits that should have been advertised, and an opportunity to present their submissions to the Select Committee?
Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend has had an entertaining week, but I do not think that there has been quite as much damage as he implies. The most helpful information that I can give is that we hope to arrange for the Second Reading of the Bill shortly.
Mr. Andrew Faulds: In view of the disastrous disposal of the George Brown collection from Newcastle university, will the right hon. Gentleman give us a chance to debate this matter, the disposal of objects from public and semi-public institutions, before more damage is done? Does he realise that in such a debate we could discuss the impending tragedy of the dispersal of the archive at Herstmonceux castle?
Mr. Biffen: What I can best do immediately is to refer these problems to my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Arts. Candidly, I see little prospect of a debate in Government time in the near future.
Mr. Michael Colvin: Has my right hon. Friend taken on board the request for an early debate on the dangers resulting from nuclear disasters? If not, Her Majesty's Government will have to bring forward an alternative plan for preventing fallout from descending on those areas of the country, such as nuclear-free zones, that lack the civil defence resources for dealing with such a contingency.
Mr. Biffen: Many of these considerations, which derive from the unhappy incident in the Soviet Union, could well be encompassed in the foreign affairs debate that we will be having in the reasonably near future.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: I urge the Leader of the House to let the House have an early debate on the use of nuclear power, following the Soviet disaster. Will he bear in mind that, when we have the debate, it will be better if we do not have it on the Adjournment so that we can table an amendment on the lines of the policy statement that was carried by the Labour party conference calling for the phasing out of nuclear power? With a little luck, we might be able to get the Liberals to vote with us. I am not sure about the hang gliding party down the Gangway because when the wind blows that way, they might blow the other way.
Mr. Biffen: The experience of common voting between the hon. Gentleman's party and the other two parties of the Left will be a developing practice over the next few months.
As to the debate on nuclear power, there are aspects about the Soviet tragedy that can be related to the international spectrum, and so debated when we have the foreign affairs debate.
As to the wider issue, the House will shortly have a chance to debate the Government's response to the findings about nuclear waste disposal from the Select Committee on the Environment.
Mr. John Stokes: Has my right hon. Friend noted from his postbag that the few complaints that Conservative Members have been receiving lately on such things as the US action in Libya, nuclear power, or even such matters as student grants, all seem to come from the more affluent section of society and not from the mass of the people? Could not we discuss this interesting phenomenon?
Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend is quite right to remind us of the limitations of postbag politics, and I shall judge the Shops Bill in that context.
Mr. Martin J. O'Neill: Will the Leader of the House arrange an early debate on the contract that was signed between Vickers and the Ministry of Defence yesterday for the production of Trident submarines? It appears from what has been said that the Estimates will not be published until 12 May and that there is likely to be some delay thereafter. Can the right hon. Gentleman arrange for an early debate on a contract that is regarded as unique and by some of us as fettering a future Labour Government because of the terms of compensation, and on which we do not have even the prospect of scrutiny in the Library? Will he arrange at least
1100
that the contract is placed in the Library, and for an early debate on what is a constitutional outrage in the form of a contract?
Mr. Biffen: I shall look into the hon. Gentleman's request about the contract. As to the more general point, I shall take account of what he said, and I realise that for many Labour Members this is a matter of special significance to their future defence attitude. I cannot hold out much hope of a debate before the debate that we shall have on the defence White Paper.
Mr. Nicholas Budgen: Will my right hon. Friend arrange a debate next week about the meeting of the Finance Ministers in the EEC last Tuesday so as to enable my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to explain why he agreed first to a substantial supplementary budget, and secondly to having the figures massaged by moving much extra expenditure from 1986 into 1987?
Mr. Biffen: I cannot accept the situation in quite the way that my hon. Friend suggests. If I were now to disturb the business that I have arranged for the House next week, I should not be universally popular. My hon. Friend is an experienced parliamentarian, and will know that there are many opportunities outside Government time to make such points.
Mr. Ronald Boyes: Does the Leader of the House recall that in a recent answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) he said that a Committee would be set up to review the opposed private Bill procedure? How far has he got on that? Will he give the House an assurance that no further progress will be made on the Channel tunnel until after the review is completed, which will allow for a more open and democratic decision-making process on that project?
Mr. Biffen: The establishment of that Committee is under consideration. I make it clear that its establishment will not result in our aborting legislation that is already in process.
Sir Kenneth Lewis: As we shall have a holiday on Monday and it is election day on Thursday, does my right hon. Friend feel inclined to act like the good headmaster that he is and allow us to have another two days off on Tuesday and Wednesday so that Opposition and Government Front-Bench Members can go out and discover what the people are thinking?
Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend should not offer that temptation. Nor should he give that general impression, as this is his last Parliament. He should be lingering here and savouring everything that it embodies, instead of which he is acting as though he had already retired.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Is the Leader of the House aware that, on Friday 11 April, a British citizen—an executive of the Bell Shipping Lines, which is a British company—was found at Dublin airport to have £300,000 in his suitcase? In so far as there is a connection between the transfer of that money and the operations of Control Risks Ltd., a London company which specialises in kidnap insurance matters, should there not be a full inquiry into the matter, and can that inquiry report to Parliament?
Mr. Biffen: I shall certainly look into the matter and refer it to whichever of my right hon. Friends is most relevant to deal with it.
Mr. Michael Latham: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied with the way in which the House discusses the grave events that occur day after day in Northern Ireland since, with one shining exception, the Ulster Unionists will not come to the Chamber? Since the Assembly is not working, is it not incumbent on the House to discuss the matters properly?
Mr. Biffen: The House continues to discuss the Province properly. It continues, traditionally, with Northern Ireland Question Time and it continues to deal with Northern Ireland orders as necessary. Whether hon. Members from the Province participate in our debates is essentially a judgment that they make having regard to their electorate.
Mr. Laurie Pavitt: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that, for two years, by means of petitions, early-day motions and questions, and by badgering him at business question time, I have tried to keep open the railway station serving Wembley stadium? May I thank and congratulate him, since last week he assured me that he would speak with great force to the Secretary of State for Transport, and yesterday British Rail decided that it would give in and not close the station at Marylebone.
Mr. Biffen: I do not deserve one shred of the hon. Gentleman's praise, but I happily accept it.
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Will my right hon. Friend reconsider the request from hon. Members on both sides of the House for an early debate on the implications of the Chernobyl disaster? Will he give us an opportunity to consider the grotesque double standards of the anti-nuclear protesters who, when they wanted to demonstrate, chose as the first port of call not the Soviet embassy but the Department of Energy? Will he give the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) the opportunity to explain why he was with the protesters?
Mr. Biffen: As I have said, such a debate would be very educative, not least because it would enable us to have some insight into the motives of those who protest against civilian nuclear power. However, the House will have the opportunity in the near future to discuss nuclear power in respect of the Soviet disaster as well as our domestic nuclear programme. I hesitate to make any commitment beyond that.
Mr. Robert Parry: Will the Leader of the House ask the Prime Minister when she returns from her visit to the far east if she will make a statement to the House on democracy and human rights in South Korea and about the peaceful unification of the peninsula, which is official Government policy?
Mr. Biffen: It is the custom of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to make statements to the House following meetings such as the one in prospect. I shall draw to her attention the suggestion that she might cover those topics, among many others.
Mr. Ivan Lawrence: May I invite my right hon. Friend to reconsider his advice that questions on the Russian disaster can be subsumed in a possible debate on foreign affairs? If that happened, there would be
1102
insufficient time for the House to consider our relationship with the United States, our relationship with Europe, the problems in the middle east and southern Africa, our relationship with the Association of the South East Asian Nations and human rights on an international basis, and the debate on foreign affairs would become a mockery. I ask my right hon. Friend to consider seriously having a separate debate soon on the disaster in the Soviet Union.
Mr. Biffen: My hon. and learned Friend makes a perfectly fair point, but, of course, it is a point that is frequently made about foreign affairs debates which, by virtue of their diversity, have to encompass a number of highly important topics. As I say, it is a matter for consideration through the usual channels and I do not want to raise expectations which I cannot fulfil.
Mr. James Callaghan: The Leader of the House invites those of us who are retiring to linger and savour the atmosphere. Is he aware that the smell reaching most of us is that of the Government's decay?
Mr. Biffen: Well, it all depends where one sits.
Mr. John Watt: Will my right hon. Friend find time for a short debate on our policy towards bank holidays? In view of the Labour party's recent attempt to hide the red flag under the cloak of its new grey image, would it not be timely for the House to have the chance to consider scrapping the May bank holiday, which is an alien celebration of Marxist Socialism, and putting bank holidays on our national saints' days which can be days of patriotism?
Mr. Biffen: I just have a feeling that that is the kind of topic which, suggested tentatively and lightheartedly ahead of an election, causes more irritation than enough. I shall bear in mind what my hon. Friend is urging upon me, but I am not aware of any great public desire to see further change.
Mr. Greville Janner: Has the attention of the Leader of the House been drawn to the allegations in The Guardian this week concerning the deaths of two British prisoners of war—a Mr. Fishwick, who died in a concentration camp, and a Sergeant John Dryden, who was handed over to the Germans and disappeared—and, in particular, the allegation that Dr. Kurt Waldheim was involved in those deaths? As it has proved impossible to obtain any information from the Government on that matter, will he be good enough to inquire from his colleagues whom one should ask about it; and, if no answer is forthcoming, may we have a statement or a debate on the matter?
Mr. Biffen: I see no particular profit in having a debate or statement on that topic or getting involved in the controversies that now rage between the World Jewish Congress and the supporters of Dr. Waldheim, but I shall consider the point that the hon. and learned Gentleman has made.
Mr. Peter Bruinvels: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the staggering growth in driving licence abuse and that in 1984–85, 141,701 people were convicted of driving licence fraud? As more than 30 million driving licences are now in existence, none with photographs, will my right hon. Friend find time for the House to debate the urgent need to stop people who have

1103
been banned, are under age, or who do not even have the right to drive, from driving?—[Interruption.] This is a serious matter.
Mr. Biffen: Road accidents are undoubtedly a subject of the utmost seriousness, but I should have thought that at the moment the level of general controversy is at such a pitch that I would not willingly wish to add to it with the proposition of putting photographs on driving licences because that would lead to considerable public debate and acrimony. However, my hon. Friend has made a serious point, and I shall take it up with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.
Mr. William Cash: In view of the importance to our commercial success of matters relating to copyright and intellectual property, will my right hon. Friend consider arranging a debate on the White Paper on that matter?
Mr. Biffen: That is one of the many factors that I have to take into account when considering a forward programme. It is a most important topic. I only regret that I cannot offer a debate in the near future.

Prison Officers (Dispute)
3.59 pm
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hurd): As I undertook in the House last night, I will, with permission, make a further statement on the situation in the prisons.
I reported to the House last night on events at Lewes and Northeye prisons. Disruption continued there during the night, but the situation has now been brought under control, though at both establishments, and particularly at Northeye near Bexhill, there has been extensive damage to buildings. Police intervention was necessary at Bristol to regain control of one wing of the prison, and at Erlestoke youth custody centre, near Devizes, some 40 trainees made a mass breakout and some 16 are still at large. The other serious incident was at Wymott, near Chorley, where there was a major disturbance but where staff gradually were able to regain control. A number of lesser incidents took place at 12 other prison establishments.
The situation in all establishments has now been brought back under control. I want to take this opportunity, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House did a few moments ago, to pay tribute to hard-pressed prison governors, those prison staff who remained at their posts, and the members of the police and fire services who have helped to restore the situation.
There will need to be an inquiry into these events. Its form and scope will have to be compatible with any police investigation into alleged offences, and I will keep the House informed.
I have taken immediate steps to try to ensure that, now that order has been restored, it can continue to be preserved. Prison governors are in touch with their local chief officers of police about the situation in their establishments. After consultation with me the acting president of the Association of Chief Police Officers has opened the national information centre at New Scotland Yard to collate and disseminate information relating to the police involvement in the prisons dispute. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has ordered preparations in case military camps are needed to house prisoners as a result of the destruction of prison accommodation. Arrangements have been made to ensure a co-ordinated response by all Government Departments to the present difficult situation.
Although some of the violent action by prisoners may have been imitative, there is little doubt that the occasion for it was the overtime ban instituted by the national executive committee of the Prison Officers Association as part of its dispute about manning levels with the Prison Department. This both increased the prospect of trouble in the prisons and reduced the resources available to deal with it. I believe that not only the public but many members of the prison service, including many members of the Prison Officers Association, will have been appalled by the events of the last 24 hours.
I therefore welcome the decision of the national executive committee of the POA to suspend its industrial action to allow talks at the Home Office to take place. The POA asks in its statement for a reciprocal gesture, asking us to allow staff to work normally and to lift threats of suspension. There should be no difficulty about that. Staff temporarily relieved from duty, that is to say suspended, can lift their own suspension by agreeing to work

1105
normally. We cannot start substantive negotiations until the threat of industrial action has been removed. But I have invited the NEC to discussions at the Department with a view to the simultaneous calling off of the industrial action and the institution of discussions about the agenda for the future which I set out in my letter of 22 April to the POA general secretary, Mr. Evans.
The House will recall that this agenda involved: a rapid settlement of this year's pay claim, including the outstanding question of a reduction in the working week for prison officers; the immediate payment of tax compensation on housing allowance for 1985–86; and bringing forward as fast as possible—this is the crucial point—work on new shift systems and pay arrangements for detailed discussion with the POA, with a view to the new arrangements being in place by April 1987.
I very much hope that the national executive committee will respond positively and constructively to this package and that the talks I have set in hand will find a way through present difficulties. I shall do everything I can to ensure that the control which has been regained in our prisons is maintained and that a constructive way forward is found to settle this destructive dispute.
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: The whole country has been appalled at the savagery of last night's events, their widespread nature and the anarchy which has prevailed. We deplore and condemn the violence and would like more information as soon as it is available about the report of two deaths at Northeye.
What we need and what the nation demands is an early resolution to this dispute. It is here that, especially after last night's events, which could and should have been foreseen by him, the Home Secretary has an inescapable responsibility. The Prison Officers Association has taken a constructive and statesmanlike step by suspending industrial action. Therefore, it is now for the Home Secretary to respond by facilitating discussions that could end the dispute. The right hon. Gentleman may not be aware that the national executive of the Prison Officers Association is not free unilaterally to abandon industrial action. A ballot was held under its own constitution, as well as under the Government's employment legislation, and a ballot is required for abandoning industrial action.
Following the last dispute in the prisons in 1980–81, when industrial action was taken, the court ruled that for industrial action to be abandoned the consent of the membership of the Prison Officers Association must be obtained in a similar way to which it was obtained when the action started. That was a ruling in the High Court by Lord Justice Browne-Wilkinson. Therefore, only the membership of the POA can remove that mandate for industrial action. For the membership to be able to do that, it needs to have a package from the Home Secretary placed before it for consideration.
I strongly urge the Home Secretary to instruct his officials immediately to get in touch with the NEC of the Prison Officers Association so that they can discuss the basis for a possible agenda for talks. Such a step might help to ease the way for the process that will end the dispute. I hope that the Home Secretary will take such constructive action urgently because a renewal of last night's arson and anarchy is too grim for anyone to contemplate.
Mr. Hurd: I welcome the change in the tone of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks since last night. He asked
1106
me a specific and serious question about reports of deaths at Northeye. He is perfectly correct: there were such reports. They came from a prisoner coming out. Since the authorities regained control at Northeye, they have made two thorough searches of the premises and have not been able to find anything to substantiate those reports. Obviously if there is any change it will have to be made known at once.
As I understand it, the right hon. Gentleman is completely accurate in the account he has just given of the requirements, not of the law of the land or the statute, but of the rules of the Prison Officers Association. That is a matter which can perfectly well be discussed in the procedural talks I have suggested.
I hope that the House and the right hon. Gentleman will understand why, in my view, it is not possible to start substantive negotiations until the threat of industrial action has been removed. On Monday I found myself in procedural discussions with the POA and there was talk of suspending action then. However, particularly dangerous action had got under way at Gloucester at that time and I have since learned that it was instigated by the POA. Therefore, at that time there was a strong feeling, which I shared, that one cannot have substantial negotiations under those conditions. That is why I have made the suggestion, which I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will recognise as having merit, of going for a simultaneous understanding for the removal of industrial action—taking account of his comments about the rules—and agreement on methods to start discussions of the agenda which I set out to Mr. Evans in my letter of 22 April.
Mr. Leon Brittan: Will my right hon. Friend agree that, in view of the vastly increased resources spent on the prison service by the Government, it is entirely reasonable to ensure that those resources are properly managed and not wasted on excessive overtime or unreasonable and unjustifiable working practices? Therefore, does my right hon. Friend agree that the POA is perfectly entitled to expect to take part in discussions on how that objective should be achieved and that the procedure my right hon. Friend has suggested is a proper way to do that?
Does my right hon. Friend also agree that, after what happened last night, the POA will forfeit the support of those most sympathetic to it unless the threat of industrial action is not just suspended but clearly withdrawn?
Mr. Hurd: I am most grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend. He has set out the position very succinctly, and I agree with all the points that he has made.
Mr. Roy Jenkins: Clearly, all right hon. and hon. Members wish the prospects for the talks well. Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that he was clearly right to stand firm on the position that it must be the prison governors, subject to the rules of the Home Office, endorsed by this House, and not the Prison Officers Association, who are responsible for running the prisons? However, will he also bear in mind that when he complains about the previous tone of comments from the Opposition and elsewhere there is one person, above all, who is responsible for the politicisation of the law and order issue, and that is the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the chairman of the Conservative party? If the right hon. Gentleman cannot restrain his raucous colleague, he must expect the interchange to be both ways.
Mr. Hurd: I do not read my right hon. Friend's remarks in that way at all. My right hon. Friend is drawing attention to the results, in his view, of some of the social legislation that was introduced by the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins). I quite understand that the right hon. Gentleman may be sensitive about that, but I do not think that it has anything to do with this issue.
Sir Edward Gardner: Will my right hon. Friend agree that this quite disastrous dispute has been brought about at a time when record sums of money have been spent by the Government on the prison service, that since 1979 the budget for the prison service has risen by 85 per cent., and that this enormous increase in money spent has been accompanied by an increase of 18 per cent. in the number of prison officers?
Mr. Hurd: Yes, indeed, and that at a time when the prison population has risen by 12 per cent. The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) was badly needed by the Leader of the Opposition a few minutes ago when the Leader of the Opposition produced, unwittingly, figures that showed that the ratio of staff to prison population had substantially improved during the lifetime of this Government.
Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Will the Home Secretary also agree that, if he were to cast his eyes back to the reply that he gave to me on Monday of this week with regard to the prison population, he would find that the number of persons on short-term sentences who have been paroled has risen by about 400 per cent.? Prison numbers as a whole have risen disastrously over the last few years, which in effect means that those being detained in prison are the longer serving prisoners for whom there is no hope of parole in many cases, as his predecessor indicated, in the long term. Therefore, will the Home Secretary agree that this has increased the pressures on the officers who have to guard these prisoners and look after their welfare? As a result of the absence of welfare services and recreational and other facilities, the POA has a perfectly credible case in seeking an increase in the number of prison officers in order to provide adequate and proper care for long-term prisoners that has been deliberately damaged by the policies of this Government.
Mr. Hurd: The balance of the prison population changes as we implement what seems to me to be the very sensible policy of keeping in prison longer those who have received particularly severe sentences for particularly heinous crimes. However, as the hon. Gentleman will know and as the figures show, the aim of our spending programme, as regards the increase in both prison places and prison officers, is not just to keep pace with the prison population but to tackle the problem of overcrowding.
Mr. Mark Carlisle: In view of the fact that what happened last night in the prisons must have caused great concern not only to people in this country but to members of the Prison Officers Association, is it not best that we should all welcome the fact that the POA has decided unilaterally to suspend its action and wish well the talks to which my right hon. Friend has referred?
Mr. Hurd: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend. I have tried to put forward a procedural suggestion, which is, I hope, in line with what he has said.
Ms. Clare Short: I think that the Home Secretary is failing to take full responsibility for a situation that has been building up for a very long time. I invite him to visit Winson Green prison in my constituency and to take with him the Prime Minister, who clearly does not understand the situation either. No education classes have been held and no workshops have been open in Winson Green because of the strain and the pressure on the Prison Officers Association.
We cannot look simply at the rise in the prison population; we have to look also at the rise in the remand population. That requires far more work because of visits to court every day. The Prison Officers Association has appealed for months for the Home Secretary's support to reorganise the prisons so that the prison officers are able to work reasonably and so that conditions for prison officers and prisoners can be improved. These appeals have been rejected. That is the cause of the build up of this great tension. It will not be resolved without talks that should be entered into unconditionally.
Mr. Hurd: The hon. Lady is right when she says that the story goes back a long time. Indeed, it goes back to the time when no money was being spent either on staff or on prisoners. The situation was deteriorating, without any remedy being sought.
The hon. Lady is also right to draw attention to the problem of the remand population. She will know of the efforts that we are making to reduce the remand population—for example, by experimenting with time limits on trial delays. I am very conscious of that problem. We are anxious to discuss these matters, and proposals to deal with them, with the POA, but on the basis which the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins) agreed—that we should consult, but that, if agreement cannot be reached, then management decides.
Mr. Charles Morrison: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the situation at Erlestoke, in my constituency, would have been much worse if it had not been for the action and dedication of the prison governor, some members of the staff and police from Hampshire, I believe, as well as from Wiltshire. As prison officers are employed by the prison service, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is high time that they lived up to their sense of duty and responsibility and negotiated responsibly, particularly as their salary level, according to the national earnings survey, is now second only to that of newspaper printers?
Finally, in order to reassure members of the public who live in the vicinity of prisons, will my right hon. Friend review the provisions for security in prisons, in case of an emergency, so that the chances of future escapes are less likely? Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the troubles with some prisons—and this is true of Erlestoke—is that it appears to have been built for nice people but that some people inside it are very nasty?
Mr. Hurd: I agree with all of my hon. Friend's points. I certainly agree that the inquiry which, as I have said, will be necessary will have to encompass, in one form or another, his point about security in places like Erlestoke.
Mr. Terry Davis: As the Home Secretary has told us that it has been necessary for the police to be involved at several prisons during the past 24 hours, will he also tell us whether any of these police officers have been issued with guns?
Mr. Hurd: No, not to my knowledge.
Sir John Farr: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the most important statistics must be the relationship between prisoners and staff? How does that relationship today compare with the relationship in 1979? While my right hon. Friend is dealing with that question, will he also please confirm that the death at Gartree was in no way connected with the dispute?
Mr. Hurd: Yes, I can confirm, according to the information that I have received, that the death which regrettably occurred at Gartree last night had nothing to do with the prison dispute. I missed the crucial point of my hon. Friend's first question.
Sir John Farr: I asked my right hon. Friend about the relationship between staff and prisoners in 1979 and how it compared with the position today.
Mr. Hurd: The mathematical relationship has improved. I do not have the figures in the exact form that my hon. Friend wants, but it flows from the figure that has already been mentioned in the House: that during our time in office the number of prison officers has increased by 18 per cent. and the prison population by 12 per cent.
Mr. Alex Carlile: Is the Home Secretary able to tell us whether governor grades, prison officers or prisoners were injured during the events of last night and this morning? Does he agree that the creditable decision by the Prison Officers Association to return to work is a sufficient gesture for talks to be resumed without any father preconditions, and, if not, why not? Does he agree that it might be wise to approach the agenda for talks with a view to arranging a no-strike agreement between the Prison Officers Association and the Government? Will he take steps to review the prison building programme so that the building is carried out where it is most needed, because that is not happening at present?
Mr. Hurd: There were a number of minor injuries, but so far I know of no major injuries. It is something approaching a miracle that people were not badly hurt or worse during what happened last night.
I tried to explain why I used rather careful phrasing in outlining the nature of the talks that can now take place, and why it is not sensible to expose ourselves again to the sort of exchange we had on Monday about the relationship between talks and industrial action. I think it was on Tuesday that I answered a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) about the possibility of a no-strike agreement. It would have to be by agreement, but many hon. Members on both sides of the House would be attracted by that idea.
Mr. John Wheeler: Does my right hon. Friend accept that many people regard his handling of this dispute as positive and welcome the initiative for further dialogue with the POA? First, when he meets the representatives of the POA, will he remind them that the POA is a uniformed service of the Crown and its industrial behaviour imposes upon other services of the Crown, notably the police and perhaps the armed services, an obligation to pick up the POA' s failings? Secondly, will he also remind them of the extent of investment in the prison service and especially about the prison building programme? After years of neglect by the Labour Government, that is an advantage not only to the prisoners but to the prison officers.
Mr. Hurd: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend's first point. He is a former prison governor and the point comes with particular force from him. I also agree with his second point. Five new prisons were opened in 1985–86 and 15 more are due to open by the early 1990s. Some 11,500 new prison places are being created. That is a substantial programme and it is in addition to refurbishment and the provision of sanitation. I do not agree with the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) that the prisons are being built in the wrong places.
Mr. Martin Flannery: Does the Minister remember that yesterday a Conservative Member talked about prison officers earning £15,000 a year? The number of prison officers has been increased but not sufficiently. Is it not to be condemned that officers are working as many as 20 to 30 hours a week overtime? That is because there are insufficient prison officers to do the job.
Will the right hon. Gentleman take note of what my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) said about education? The Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts had on it some hon. Members from the Government side and it placed before the House a most important report setting out the cuts in education in the prison service. It showed that there were insufficient officers to escort the prisoners to classes. We had a debate on the matter but that got us nowhere, even though we warned about what would happen. When will the Government take note of that report and do something so that prison officers do not have to take action?
Mr. Hurd: The hon. Member spoke about prison officers' salaries. The average pay is £15,000, and that includes overtime. Overtime is not compulsory and quite a number of prison officers do not work overtime. However, a good many work 20 to 30 hours overtime a week. That is thoroughly bad but, to a large extent, it occurs because of the working practices and shift arrangements. That is one reason why it is crucial for us to discuss and change these arrangements.
Mr. Ian Gow: Is it not the unpleasant truth that those who were properly sentenced to terms of imprisonment are now at liberty, and that substantial damage has been done to public property as a result of a breach of duty by the very people who have a special duty to protect the public interest?
Mr. Hurd: There must be widespread anxiety in the country and, indeed, within the ranks of the POA about the events of last night. They were appalling and must on no account be repeated.
Mr. James Lamond: Does the Home Secretary feel that he is assisted in any way in grappling with this great problem by hearing at Prime Minister's Question Time perfectly serious questions about the matter being greated by jeers and boos and shrieks of laughter from the Government side, led by the Prime Minister herself?
Mr. Hurd: I am sorry to return to the matter, but I think it may have arisen because the Leader of the Opposition thought he was making a case in support of his argument but was in fact, making a case against it.
Mr. Teddy Taylor: I fully support the action the Home Secretary has taken. Will he assure

1111
the House that contingency resources will be available speedily to restore order and security in the unfortunate event of a further outbreak of industrial unrest?
Mr. Hurd: I referred in my statement to arrangements involving the police and to arrangements between each governor and each prison and the chief officer of the local police forces. I also mentioned central arrangements involving the Government and particularly my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.
Mr. Jeff Rooker: What proportion of the governor grades and the management of the prisons in the Home Office are former prison officers? How does the figure compare with promotion through the ranks of the police?
Mr. Hurd: Obviously, the structures are different, but I shall let the hon. Gentleman have the figures.
Mr. Derek Spencer: Leicester gaol has a special secure unit. Can my right hon. Friend reassure those hon. Members who have similar units in their constituencies that their special requirements have an appropriate high priority?
Mr. Hurd: I certainly give my hon. and learned Friend that assurance. As he will know, there was some trouble in Leicester prison last night. The problem is not entirely resolved in that my last report was to the effect that POA officers at the gate were still discouraging staff who turned up for duty. I hope that that problem has been resolved by now.
Mr. Andrew Faulds: Would it not be advisable for the Prime Minister to abandon her jaunt to Tokyo in view of the fact that she is personally responsible for this trend in the breakdown of law and order which is a direct result of her Government's policies? If she does go, is it not a fact that nobody else in the Cabinet will be able to take any decision at all until she comes back?
Mr. Hurd: The hon. Member is in his usual wild and flaming form. He seems to have very little notion about how these affairs are conducted.
Mr. Michael Marshall: Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to assure those of us who have open prisons in our constituencies, such as I have at Ford, that the experience at Northeye has not been the general pattern? We accept that the prison officers and the governor did a good job in keeping things normal.
Mr. Hurd: Yes. That gives me an opportunity to say that not only at Ford but at the great majority of prison establishments there was no trouble last night.
Mr. Ian Lloyd: The country will have heard with immense relief the Home Secretary's statement this afternoon. Before too many diverse and disreputable organisations seek to parade their spurious claims against society under the banner of "industrial action", will my right hon. Friend make it perfectly clear that industry is not involved in this? We are talking about not action but inaction, and what we are seeing is civil disruption. Can he make sure that in future that phrase is used to describe this kind of action against society when organisations, however various, parade their grievances in the street?
Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend is quite right. We have lapsed into this jargon but it is not accurate and can be unhelpful.
Mr. John Home Robertson: Is the Home Secretary aware that Mr. Peter Clarke, the officially adopted Conservative candidate for my constituency who describes himself as a loyal Thatcherite, made a public statement last week describing the prison service as incompetent, inefficient, brutal and stupid. He went on to call for the privatisation of the penal system. Would the Home Secretary care to comment on those Tory policies?
Mr. Hurd: The hon. Member seems to have a particularly enterprising opponent, and I look forward to the intellectual debate that will follow.
Mr. Harry Greenway: Is not my right hon. Friend currently undertaking a study into alternatives to prison and to the possibility of reducing prison population by that means? In his talks with the POA, will he give priority to getting prisoners to education classes and make that part of the future duties of prison officers?
Mr. Hurd: One of the difficulties about the present situation is that prison officers are caught up with other activities. As my hon. Friend says, they might be better employed escorting people to and from education classes.
My hon. Friend asks about alternatives to custody. He knows that we cannot in any way direct the courts about who should go to prison, but where the courts can be persuaded that there are tough and practical alternatives to custody for minor offences, I hope that they will take them up.
Mr. John Ryman: May I ask the Home Secretary two specific questions? Does he agree that one of the fundamental problems is that basic pay is far too low in the prison service, so that to make a living wage a prison officer has to work overtime? That is why a vast amount of overtime is worked—the basic pay is insufficient to live on.
Secondly, what does the right hon. Gentleman propose to do about the extraordinary circular with which he has been inundating the judiciary, telling them what they already know—that their sentencing powers are very wide? I suggest that it amounts to an attempt to interfere with the judicial process.
Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman's second point is nonsense. I answered questions about that before. The circular strictly followed precedent and was issued with the agreement of my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor. I think that the hon. Gentleman asked me two identical questions last night. The answer to the first is the same as last night—that there is scope for negotiations between the Treasury and the Prison Officers Association on basic pay. The irony is that those negotiations were about to begin when the present dispute escalated. I hope that if the procedural talks that I have outlined are successful, the substantial negotiations between the Treasury and the POA on basic pay can start.
Mr. Kenneth Warren: Will my right hon. Friend take account of and give praise to the excellent work of the Sussex constabulary in containing the problems at Northeye? I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Wardle) will want to refer to that if he catches your eye, Mr. Speaker. Will

1113
my right hon. Friend praise the police for the way in which they contained a serious situation and for looking after prisoners in my constituency?
Mr. Hurd: I have heard praise from all quarters for the work of the Sussex constabulary. It received small quantities of help swiftly from Kent and Surrey. Two prisons are involved—Lewes and Northeye. The constabulary has performed a necessary job skilfully.
Mr. Greville Janner: Does the Home Secretary accept that it is important to try to reach a settlement before the weekend, because at the weekend, in Leicester and elsewhere, prisons are manned to a large extent by people working overtime. If overtime is not to be worked, deputy governors and others who have been filling in from one prison to another will not be able to do so because they will have to look after the places where they are ordinarily stationed. Has the right hon. Gentleman contingency plans, and, if so, what are they?
Mr. Hurd: The answer to the second question is yes, but I shall not tell the hon. and learned Gentleman what they are at this stage. The answer to his first question is that I hope that it is inconceivable that the action will be resumed between now and the weekend. That would be the height of irresponsibility.
Mr. Robert Atkins: Is my right hon. Friend aware that my constituents will be immensely grateful to the police from Leyland, who were called in to assist at Wymott prison, which is immediately adjacent to my constituency boundary? We are extremely grateful to them for what they have done. Is my right hon. Friend further aware that we on the Conservative Benches are getting a little sick of the sanctimonious claptrap from the Oppostion Benches, bearing in mind the Labour Government's irresponsible management of the prison service over the years compared to ours? We have caught more criminals, imprisoned more prisoners and are building more prisons.
Mr. Hurd: It is true that we have grasped and are trying to deal with the problems, which are much worse than they need have been because they were shirked by the Labour Government.
Mr. Ken Eastham: During this fearful and disastrous period for the Home Office, may I remind the Home Secretary that in the major cities we have the oldest, most overcrowded and worst prisons? This is causing great anxiety in built-up city areas. Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that there will be no overspill of fear and disaster in communities in cities as a consequence of the disturbances?
Mr. Hurd: It is true that many of the Victorian prisons are in the heart of county towns and cities. It is an essential part of our programme to build new prisons, as in my own county, which will partly or wholly replace those prisons, or to refurbish them. They were extremely well built. If their design can be modernised, they still have a good deal of life in them, in many cases.
Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: Has my right hon. Friend taken the opportunity, in his talks with the Prison Officers Association, to remind it that this Conservative Administration not only say that they care about the prison officers' future and their working conditions, but, unlike
1114
other parties, have announced the biggest building programme in the history of the prison service? We have shown to the prison officers that we care about their future. I hope that in return they will help us in the fight to maintain law and order.
Mr. Hurd: I agree with the spirit of my hon. Friend's remarks. I hope that we can recover from this disastrous situation and, as my hon. Friend wishes, build up in the mind of the public once again the importance and necessity of the work that the prison officers do. We can all help in that.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have to take into account the subsequent business before the House. This afternoon I have given precedence to those who were not called last night. I shall now endeavour to call all those who have been standing provided that questions are brief.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Now that the Home Secretary is almost halfway to getting his earhole belted by a group of trade unionists, will the settlement be of the "Solomon Binding" variety, or will it be in the upper quartile? Whatever course is taken, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the British people will not be hoodwinked by the Government? The Government were elected in 1979 on a law and order ticket and promised a short, sharp shock for prisoners and to set the British people free, yet seven years later here we are with the Tory Government delivering a short sharp shock, not to prisoners, but to the British people and setting the prisoners free.
Mr. Hurd: That was not too subtle, and I disagree.
Mr. Nicholas Soames: I welcome the news that further talks are to take place, but does my right hon. Friend agree that the prison officers who took part in the action yesterday showed a gross and inexcusable dereliction of duty?
Mr. Hurd: I think that prison officers will want to reflect carefully on the action that they took in response to the request of the national executive of the POA, and will want to think carefully about the consequences which, in a minority of cases, flowed from it.
Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk: Does the Home Secretary accept that for a long time many of us have opposed some of the abuses of prison officers, which are so detrimental to taxpayers, prisoners and their families, but those abuses should have been dealt with by himself and his predecessors a long time ago? They can be fairly dealt with only by patient and long negotiations, not by the seemingly provocative, confrontationist politics on which the right hon. Gentleman is embarked. Will he give an assurance that in any further talks not only 'will there be no preconditions, but that part of the package for ending the dispute will include proposals to reduce substantially the prison population, thereby creating a constructive and positive regime for prison officers and prisoners?
Mr. Hurd: I am in favour of patient discussion of those matters as long as there is progress. The trouble is that over many years progress in that area has been extraordinarily slow. It is not our action that has been provocative in the past few weeks. The hon. Gentleman makes his point again about reducing the size of the prison population. He

1115
knows that I have no direction over the courts in that matter, so what one is talking about is persuading the courts that, in certain cases, as I have said, there are tough and practical alternatives.
Mr. Peter Bruinvels: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the sit-in at Leicester prison during the night by 48 prisoners was peaceful only because of the able assistance given by five assistant governors? Will he join me in congratulating those assistant governors? Is he satisfied that there are enough assistant governors around to help? What will be done at the Old Bailey, which I understand had to be closed at 2 o'clock today because there were not enough prison officers to take the prisoners back to the remand centres?
Mr. Hurd: I shall keep an eye on the situation in Leicester to which my hon. Friend referred. I hope that the position in the law courts can revert to normal once the suspension of action takes effect.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Is it not true that overcrowding in Britain's prisons is now so severe that more than half of Britain's prisoners are still slopping out, in 1986? Is it not true also that, even after the implementation of the Government's building programme, by 1991 there will still be 24,500 prisoners slopping out and, even after the completion of the programme by 1999, there will be 18,500 of Britain's prisoners slopping out? How is it possible to get peace in the prisons until conditions are improved?
Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman should really be ashamed to make that point. What we are doing is retrieving a situation of scandalous neglect. It is not just a question of the new prisons, which obviously are built with new sanitation, but of the refurbishment of existing prisons which means that integral sanitation is being installed in 10,000 existing cells. That is quite a programme.
Mr. Tim Rathbone: My right hon. Friend may be reassured to hear that I visited Lewes prison this morning and found that the governor and his assistant did a remarkable job last night. They are tired but in good heart today. The majority of the prisoners have behaved within all the rules of the prison. I believe that the majority of prison officers at Lewes prison would have wished to behave and to do their duty in the normal way. Unfortunately, there is a small coterie, both within the prisoners body and among the Prison Officers Association, which stirs up this trouble. This was illustrated in a response to the governor himself by one prison officer, who, when greeted, said with a threatening smirk, "Ah, but the day is not over yet." I hope my right hon. Friend will ensure that communications between all members of the Prison Officers Association will be as good as his communications with the officers themselves.
Mr. Hurd: I am glad that my hon. Friend visited Lewes prison this morning. The situation at Lewes was one of the most difficult, and there are still difficulties, as he has just told us. I have taken careful note of what he said.
Mr. Harry Ewing: Is the Home Secretary aware that this problem will not be solved simply by negotiations or discussions between prison
1116
governors, assistant governors and the Association of Chief Police Officers, because one of the major problems in the prisons throughout Great Britain is that a prison officer cannot in any circumstances become a governor or an assistant governor, and most of the governors and assistant governors are direct entrants from the college at Wakefield into the prison system, without any experience of managing difficult prisoners, let alone short-term prisoners? This matter will be solved only through negotiations between the Home Office and the Prison Officers Association. Generous as I am at times, I must say that of the four former Home Secretaries still in the House of Commons, three would have resigned on this issue, and the right hon. Gentleman really ought to follow the example of those three.
Mr. Hurd: I think that it was one of the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends who raised the question of the different structures of the two professions, the police and the prisons, and, of course, they are different. I have been very impressed by the high quality and sensitivity of prison management, and I believe, from what I hear, that there has been a substantial improvement in that quality in recent years.
Mr. Charles Wardle: I have reported to my right hon. Friend what I saw at Northeye last night and again this morning after the prison was retaken. Will he recognise that a potentially very dangerous situation was contained largely because of the courageous action of the prison governor and chief officer, and because of the prompt and highly professional support of the Sussex police? Will he accept that the unavoidable impression from what I saw last night was that the riot would not have taken place if there had not been an overtime ban? Will he bear in mind that the total and wanton destruction of Northeye should be contrasted with the recent completion of five new prisons, with 15 more prisons to be completed in the next few years?
Mr. Hurd: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for passing on the news of his visit to his constituency prison. The two Sussex prisons were among the most difficult. My hon. Friend was in close touch with me last night, and I am most grateful to him for his efforts.
Mr. Michael Stern: Has my right hon. Friend heard the recent report from Bristol prison, with which I have been in touch all day, that that branch of the Prison Officers Association is still meeting to decide whether to obey the advice of its national executive and call off the overtime ban? If that report is correct—and I have no way of being certain about it—will my right hon. Friend join me and our hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of the Environment, who is also concerned with this issue, in calling upon the Bristol branch to take the advice of the national executive and contemplate the results of its inaction last night?
Mr. Hurd: I have not heard the report. Indeed, the report that I had from Bristol was rather to the contrary, that the local Prison Officers Association chairman, before the national executive decision, stated that staff would work normally there today, whatever the national executive decided. Obviously that needs looking into. If the situation is as my hon. Friend describes, I shall certainly agree with his appeal.
Mr. Kaufman: The Home Secretary, in response to his hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames), said that the prison officers' action had been taken at the request of the national executive of the Prison Officers Association, whereas the position is precisely the opposite, namely, that the national executive of the Prison Officers Association took the action on the mandate of its membership, who, under the Government's own legislation, took the Government's preferred course of a ballot, in which 78 per cent. voted. Of that figure 81 per cent. voted in favour of industrial action, which, as the Home Secretary has now acknowledged to me, under the ruling of the High Court cannot be abandoned, as he demands, without a further ballot. That being so, following his statement and his responses today he may be in danger of imposing requirements for talks which are too
1118
rigid and may lead to a breakdown. I therefore recommend that the right hon. Gentleman studies the words that I put to him—they were not phrased idly and they were not put to him idly—since that kind of approach could be a means of achieving talks that might end the dispute.
Mr. Hurd: I shall certainly do what the right hon. Gentleman said at the beginning. I accepted when he first made the point that, because of the nature of its rules and the legal decisions that have flown from its rules, the Prison Officers Association has a procedural problem. There was nothing in the law of the land that forced the association to decide to instruct its members to follow the particular form of highly damaging and destructive action that it took. There was nothing that compelled it to do that. Therefore, I stand by what I said, but I will, of course, study all constructive suggestions that have been made.

Opposition Day
[I 3TH ALLOTTED DAY]

Caring for the Carers
Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
4.47 pm
Mr. Michael Meacher: I beg to move,
That this House, noting that there are an estimated 5·5 million people from the age of seven to 70 years caring for disabled and elderly relatives at home, often for many years, pays the warmest possible tribute to those carers; and, further noting the research which shows that carers themselves suffer disproportionately from mental and physical illness, social isolation and poverty, calls upon the Government to take urgent action to improve their position, especially in view of the undoubted savings to public funds which flow from their commitment, and in particular to ensure that, in line with its stated policies on care in the community: (i) adequate respite care, both at home and in short-stay facilities, be assured by a considerable improvement in the level of support given to statutory and voluntary agencies, (ii) a flexible system of cash and other appropriate support services, such as home helps and home nursing, be available at times when the carer needs them and (iii) the invalid care allowance is made available to married women carers as recommended by the Select Committee.
Community care policies have been advocated now for a decade on the basis that it is much better for those who need support because of physical or mental infirmity to be cared for outside large institutions. It is now becoming increasingly recognised, however, that that policy has merely shifted the burden of care from the trained and supportive to the untrained and isolated in the form of the family. What started off as a policy of keeping dependent people out of institutions has backfired to the point where it has created more mentally and physicaly ill people—this time those who are supposed to be the carers.
At present, carers save the state over £5,000 million. That would be the cost to the state if it had to provide alternative institutional care. One would think that the state would aim to put back some of that money to support them in their invaluable role. Instead, the Government have been offloading responsibility on to their shoulders without even a sideways look at how they should be helping.
At present 5·5 million men and women are caring for an elderly or disabled friend or relative who could not live safely or comfortably without their help. They include about 1·25 million people who are caring for someone who is severely or extremely severely handicapped. I understand that as many as 100,000 of them have been caring for more than 10 years, and that thousands have been caring for as many as 30 years or more. Those figures give the lie to the myth that we are no longer a caring nation.
Today, far more people than ever before are making a major contribution to the physical and mental health of a family member, but they can maintain that role only if they have support. The Opposition have tabled this motion because of the absence of that support in far too many cases.
About two out of three carers are in poor physical or mental health at any one time. Recent surveys have shown
1120
that nearly half are at serious risk of mental illness. Nearly seven in 10 suffer physical injury as a result of their caring duties, because there is a great deal of single-handed lifting involved, unlike in hospitals where nurses are ordered to lift only in pairs or using the appropriate hoists. The position is made worse for carers when a back injury cannot be rested or a hernia repaired because there is no one to take over their caring duties while they are in hospital.
Carers suffer emotional and psychological stress from social isolation, when other family members flatly refuse to help, or when statutory services simply fail to materialise in support. The complete submersion of one's own needs and preferences in those of another and feeling wholly out of control of one's life are major causes of depression in carers. They suffer financial penalty because disability and frailty nearly always lead to reduced income and increased outgoings. The Government should not be so mealy-mouthed about that by altering the word "poverty", which we use, to "disadvantage" in their amendment. Carers suffer "poverty"—and we use that word advisedly.
Many entitlements to benefit are lost as soon as a disabled person moves in with a family member. An elderly disabled parent can no longer claim supplementary pension and will lose heating and diet allowances. Most important, carers' problems are often multiple, not of one type alone. Physical injuries, psychological stress, and financial hardship are often compounded. In addition, many carers have duties towards not only one single disabled, or extremely disabled, person, but to two, or even three. I could give many examples, but I shall cite one.
A woman of 50, whom I know, cares for her husband who is 20 years older than she is and is suffering from dementia. Her parents, who are in their 90s, and her mother's sister live with them. Both her mother and her mother's sister are physically frail, and her mother is also blind. She receives assistance only from a district nurse who comes once a week to give her mother a blanket bath. Such cases are typical. There is nothing exceptional about them.
All the evidence shows that the more handicapped and dependent a relative is, the less support a carer will receive from formal and informal agencies. That makes the cumulative burden all the harder to bear. The more disabled a relative, the fewer the people who are prepared to give the necessary assistance. It is because volunteers and neighbours are of little help when a disability becomes advanced, which is when help is needed, that statutory support is urgently required.
Above all, the debate centres on the unrecognised needs of women. More than one in eight women is a carer, and four out of five carers are women. Their position is much worse than that of their male counterparts because they are much more likely to have to give up their jobs. They have less money, experience more stress, and are less likely to receive support services. To add insult to injury, married and cohabiting women are denied invalid care allowance, which is the sole benefit paid to people who are prevented from undertaking full-time work because they are carers.
The problem will not go away. As the numbers of elderly people increase—that section of the population will grow fastest towards the end of the century—an increasing number of people will need assistance if they are to continue to lead independent, fulfilled lives. Our

1121
intention today is to make it clear that carers cannot and must not be expected to bear the full weight of the Government's community care policies unseen, unpaid and undervalued. That is the central theme of the debate.
I take this opportunity to pay the warmest tribute to the Association of Carers for its dedicated and tireless campaign to bring this vital issue to the attention of the nation.
At present, the position of carers is worsening. The Social Security Bill will leave carers entitled to long-term supplementary benefit worse off by £6·90 a week. In addition, they will have to pay the first 20 per cent. of their rates from that reduced income. The Government have refused to move on the European Advocate General's recommendation on the Drake case, made a week ago. They have talked of the money being spent on services instead of on invalid care allowance. The truth is that the allowance is not being paid and the services are not being provided. The Government failed to support the carers' clause in its original form in the private Member's Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke). Therefore, they have denied carers the right to be assessed for their ability to care or to continue caring, and that is extremely important to carers.
Even the Government's helping-the-community-tocare programme—I pass over its tiny £10·5 million budget—has been a wasted opportunity for carers, because almost none of the funding has been directed towards increasing statutory services to carers as a right.
Our motion calls on the Government to provide some real, substantial increase in support for carers in ways which they want. First, carers—who have often given up full-time work to undertake their caring role—want an income independent of those whom they look after. Following the clear prompting—I know that this is a recommendation—of the European Court, we in the Labour party believe that the Government have an undeniable duty to pay invalid care allowance to married and cohabitating women. I have received legal and counsel's opinion that if, in June, the European Court decide that the Government are discriminating against women, and if they do not pay invalid care allowance to every eligible woman, regardless of whether she has claimed it, backdated to December 1984, they will be acting unlawfully.
Mr. Eric Forth: Is the hon. Gentleman prepared to say that any future Labour Government will immediately accede to any similar ruling, or, indeed, to any ruling, by the European Court of Justice? Is he now so enamoured of European Community institutions that that is his position?
Mr. Meacher: I believe that if a Labour Government had been in power for seven years, they would have paid the invalid care allowance to married women without waiting for a decision by the European Court. We do not believe in discrimination in social security matters. A British Government should not need external prompting.
It is no good the Government making noises about spending money on services. The fact is that invalid care allowance is an income replacement benefit. The Government have no more right to offer invalid care allowance or services to carers than they have to offer a state retirement pension or home helps and day centres to elderly people. Carers are entitled to income and to
1122
services. It is false economy not to provide this balance of aid. In the absence of both, many carers are forced to give up a role that they would otherwise maintain. The alternative, institutional care, is a far greater cost to the state.
Carers want access to respite care, both in the home and in a residential setting, which is of a quality acceptable to the carer and the dependant. Such evidence as we have shows that respite care is patchy. I am aware that some local authorities provide excellent respite care, but they are few in number and mainly Labour authorities. More Tory authorities should provide such care. The existing respite care, however, is patchy, inflexible, inappropriate and often directed at the dependant rather than the carer. All too often, carers are placed in an intolerable position when the person they care for refuses to go into respite care, or states that they do not need it because they have a daughter to look after them.
I know that it is invidious to pick out the name of a voluntary organisation, because there are so many performing an important role, but I think it is fair to pay tribute to the work of Crossroads and other care attendant schemes which seek to offer a multi-purpose, paid worker, round the clock, every day of the week. It is only such schemes which enable carers either to continue at work or to take time out from caring to meet their own needs. That is the right model for respite care. All the tasks of the carer need to be covered; otherwise breaks for more than a few hours from caring would be impossible.
Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that an important aspect in attempting to maximise the provision for respite care is flexibility? Respite care should be available at short notice as a support service within the home or a place suitably near to the home. In case of illness or emergency, respite care should be available immediately.
Mr. Meacher: The hon. Gentleman must be telepathic, as I was about to make that exact point. It is crucial that respite care is flexible enough to cover emergencies and unforeseen circumstances, as well as set and specific periods of care. That would enable the needs to be met.
Carers need advice and access to information. Many carers feel isolated. They do not know what, if any, services are available within the local community. At present, the vast majority of carers receive neither training nor support. There should be medical assessment of both the carer and the dependant. It is impossible to know what sort of services would be most suitable if neither the clinical condition of the dependant nor the medical capability of the carer has been checked. There should be a continuous back-up service and reviews so that help can not only be provided at times of crisis, but adjusted to match changing circumstances.
The Government in their amendment complacently talk about
"continuing improvement in the level of support given to statutory and voluntary agencies".
For millions of carers and dependants that is a cruel joke. The lie is proven by the pathetically low community care expenditure, the continued rate support grant cuts and the drastic cuts in the voluntary sector budget due to the Government's abolition of the GLC and the metropolitan counties.

1123
The Government are proposing a so-called social fund in the Social Security Bill. That fund will undermine community care policy and force many thousands of people into institutions. The Government have rejected the invalid care allowance for married women and revealed their true attitude to carers. On 28 January, the Minister for Health dismissed my plea for increased income support for carers on the ground that it would mean
"a great big nanny state".—[Official Report, 28 January 1986; Vol. 90, c. 779.]
We reject that nauseating disregard for those who have given unremitting care and support to the disabled and the elderly year upon year, without complaint and without any allowances. By contrast to that disregard, the Labour party pledges to extend the invalid care allowance to married and cohabiting women. We do not accept the Government's feeble excuse that they cannot afford the meagre benefit of £23 a week for 96,000 women, when the same Government can find the money to pay private nursing homes £250 a week to look after elderly people.
We will appoint a carers' liaison officer to each social services department to identify carers in its area and to assess how best to meet their needs. We will seek to provide respite care and a flexible system of support services for carers. It will take time, and the services will have to be phased in as our economy recovers. However, we acknowledge the objective and will not shirk that responsibility.
We do not accept the present position, whereby carers are presented with the stark choice of looking after a dependant with minimal support and at great, sometimes crippling, cost to themselves or of putting their relative into permanent residential accommodation. The vast majority of carers are devoted to looking after and keeping their relatives at home. To do so they need financial, social and practical support. If the Government will not provide that, we will.
5.6 pm
The Minister for Health (Mr. Barney Hayhoe): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
`noting that there are a substantial number of people from the age of seven to 70 years caring for disabled and elderly relatives at home, often for many years, pays the warmest possible tribute to these carers; and, further noting the research which shows that carers themselves often suffer from mental and physical illness, social isolation and disadvantage, recognises the action already taken by the Government to improve their position, especially in view of the undoubted savings to public funds which flow from their commitment; and in particular welcomes the Government's intentions, in line with its stated policies on care in the community and the availability of resources, that: (a) adequate respite care, both at home and in short-stay facilities, be assured by continuing improvement in the level of support given to statutory and voluntary agencies, (b) a flexible system of appropriate support such as home helps and home nursing be available at times when the carer needs them and (c) any judgment which may be made by the European Court relating to the invalid care allowance introduced by the Labour Government in 1976, be carefully considered by the Government and made the subject of a report to the House.'.
This debate gives the House and myself a chance to pay a warm tribute to the role of informal carers. I certainly welcome that part of the speech of the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), which was otherwise
1124
characterised by pessimistic and exaggerated descriptions of these matters. I hope that his tribute to informal carers is echoed in all quarters of the House.
Last week The Sunday Times graphically described the pressures that a heavily dependent person represents to a family. The article explained that, even when practical help is provided to such a family, that help puts pressures on the family. I doubt whether there is any way of avoiding such pressures on informal carers, but without doubt all those concerned—the professionals, the voluntary agencies and the informal carers—who support such families need to work together to minimise the pressures upon carers.
The key significance of informal carers has, as the hon. Gentleman said, recently been referred to in our debates on the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Bill, introduced by the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke). I do not wish to add anything to what I said about that Bill on the Floor of the House and in Committee. I am glad that the Bill is making progress.
The hon. Member for Oldham, West made much of the invalid care allowance and married women. The Government have made their position perfectly clear. The cost of extending invalid care allowance to married women is estimated to be £100 million a year extra, net of savings on other benefits. Even if the resources were available, this should be seen in the context of priorities for social security spending as a whole. The present invalid care allowance arrangements were introduced by the Labour Government of 1976. I do not think that shone through the speech of the hon. Gentleman. This discriminatory legislation, which the hon. Gentleman derided, was introduced by the Labour Government. I am not sure whether he was a member of that Labour Government, but he was certainly a supporter of that Government. The judgment of the European Court as to whether the arrangements that were so introduced contravene the Community's directive on equal treatment is not expected until June. However, I repeat the assurance that it will be carefully considered by the Government and made the subject of a report to the House, as stated in the amendment.
Opposition Members are always keen to add to their list of promises to spend more and more. Indeed, I noticed that the hon. Member for Oldham, West was at it again today. I want to contrast their promises with the performance and record of this Government. For example, we have increased spending on benefits for the long-term sick and disabled by more than 50 per cent. in real terms. In cash terms, we have more than doubled the mobility allowance and taken it out of tax. We have ended some of the discrimination against women, which we inherited from the Labour Government, by abolishing the household duties test and introducing a new severe disablement allowance. We have also ended the invalidity trap—a move that helps 55,000 sick and disabled people.
Of course, there is no hon. Member who would not give high priority to support for the disabled and those who care for them, but we serve them ill if, as the hon. Member for Oldham, West has done, we make promises that it is beyond this country's capacity to fulfil.
Mr. Meacher: There have been no such promises.
Mr. Hayhoe: The hon. Gentleman's commitment to spend £100 million more on ICA seems clear. I assume that is on top of the £24 billion commitment that has already been made by the Labour party.
Mr. Meacher rose—
Mr. Hayhoe: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman. I hope that he is about to explain how a Labour Government would fund that £24 billion of promises.
Mr. Meacher: Perhaps I can explain the canard of £24 billion that Ministers keep mentioning. Apparently, £2·5 billion of that sum is for equalising the retirement age at 60. Neither I nor anyone else in the Labour party has given that commitment. It simply shows what a total fabrication that total of £24 billion is. The Minister has mentioned the £100 million that the ICA would cost. My point was that there would be a net saving if more people were kept in the community instead of being put into private nursing or rest homes at a cost of £250 a week or more and at the expense of supplementary benefit.
Mr. Hayhoe: In effect, the hon. Gentleman is not promising to spend any more money. That contrasts with the attitude of some of his hon. Friends, who always want to know what extra money the Government intend to spend.
As the hon. Gentleman is in a mood to discard promises, perhaps he will turn his mind to the £4·5 billion commitment that he made last April, when he said that a Labour Government would pay a disablement costs allowance of nearly £60 a week on top of the existing attendance allowance. Does he stand by that commitment today, or does he wish to withdraw it? Disabled people and their carers have a right to know which of Labour's promises can be believed. Frankly, I think that they would be very unwise to bank on any of them being implemented.
As I have said, the Government fully recognise what families, friends and neighbours do in providing support within the community for the disabled and elderly frail. Real progress is being made, particularly in the provision of support for informal carers of heavily dependent people living at home. But that progress represents only part of the improvements made over the past six years in the health and social services generally.
Expenditure on the NHS has increased by about 24 per cent. in real terms between 1978–79 and 1986–87. In 1984, there were nearly 3,000 more GPs than in 1976, and as a result the average list size has been reduced. That is particularly important as the number of elderly people who require greater medical care is increasing. More than 3 million extra out-patient cases were dealt with last year compared with the year before we came to power. Community psychiatric nurses have increased in number. Indeed, the increase has been significant, as the number has more than doubled. Many more examples could be given, but I have quoted enough to show that on a range of measures significant improvements in the services available to patients have been made.
Progress has equally been made in the social services. We introduced the social services inspectorate in April 1985 to help to improve the quality and efficiency of services. The number of social workers has risen by 25 per cent., from 12,481 in 1978 to more than 15,600 in 1984. In the same period there was a 13 per cent. increase in the number of home helps, and we all know how important
1126
they can be. Expenditure by social services departments increased in real terms by 19 per cent. between 1978–79 and 1984–85. Those increases in resources have been matched by the action that we have taken to encourage collaboration between the different statutory services.
We have placed emphasis on the key enabling role of social services departments in mobilising all the sources of support available in the community. We have widened the membership of joint consultative committees to include representatives of the voluntary sector and of family practitioner committees. We continue to seek improvements in services that provide support to those in the community who need it, with the recent publication of the consultation document on primary care.
Mr. Roy Mason: We estimate that there are 12,600 disabled people in the Barnsley area, which represents 7 per cent. of the population. Moreover, 7,000 of them are severely disabled and require constant care and attention night and day. The carers should clearly receive more financial recognition. In industrial towns, the number of disabled people is higher than average because of coal mines, factories, and so on. Local authorities in those areas would like to develop a much more comprehensive care and attendance service. What plans does the Minister have to assist local authorities to achieve that objective?
Mr. Hayhoe: I have already said that no hon. Member would fail to give high priority to the extension and improvement of services for the disabled, but such matters must be seen within the context of the availability of resources. Indeed, that is mentioned in our amendment.
I am talking about real improvements. I know that the hon. Member for Oldham, West may wish to concentrate on other areas. However, the imaginative proposals in the report of the review of the role of community nursing services, chaired by Mrs. Julia Cumberlege, which is now out for consultation, illustrate further ways in which services might be changed to meet better the needs of users, including informal carers. The crucial role of informal carers—families, friends and neighbours—who care for heavily dependent people living in the community should be much more widely recognised. They certainly need advice and information about how to cope, sometimes emotionally and often with practical problems.
Practical assistance can greatly help. I refer, for example, to the provision of bath hoists. We have already heard about the difficulties faced by elderly carers who have to do a lot of lifting. Moreover, the availability of some form of respite care can make all the difference. Being treated as a valued member of the team by those paid professionals helping to support the dependent person can also make all the difference. It was because the Government recognised that too often informal carers were ignored rather than supported by those providing health and social services that, during the past few years, considerable emphasis has been placed on the role of informal carers.
Mr. Tony Blair: Is the Minister aware that in constituencies such as mine, where Winterton hospital cares for many psycho-geriatric patients, patients are gradually being released into the community? Is he further aware that that is causing tremendous problems for

1127
the families looking after them informally? The worst thing that could happen would be for the services provided by local authorities to be cut.
Mr. Hayhoe: I agree that the arrangements which are being made for people to move back into the community must be carefully considered and co-ordinated by all concerned. Generally speaking, the policies—they are not just this Government's policies, but they have been considered desirable for many years, as the hon. Gentleman recognised—are being pursued.
The DHSS has taken a variety of steps, some of them modest, which together add up to a significant programme of action. In 1983 and 1984, the Department's social work service ran a major national project to draw attention to the needs of informal carers and to encourage policy makers, managers and front-line workers to consider how support for a dependent person's informal carer could be made an integral part of the range of services needed for effective community care.
To continue the policy development beginning with that social work service project, several elements of the helping the community to care programme are specifically concerned with support for informal carers. The King's Fund is undertaking two projects. One is aimed at improving the quality and availability of information and training of use to informal carers about what services might be of help or about how to cope. The other, in cooperation with Age Concern, is to provide information and training directed at general practitioners and community nurses so that they are better equipped to advise carers of elderly people suffering from incontinence. A third element of the helping the community to care programme is the development of three demonstration districts—in east Sussex, Stockport and Sandwell—of voluntary sector services to support informal carers.
We have heard about the importance of respite care. It is right for dependent people to be cared for in their homes as far as possible, and I recognise the need for respite care in the interests of the dependent person and of his family or friends who support him. Respite care, as the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) said, is especially valuable when unplanned events or emergencies mean that the informal carer must give up his responsibilities for a time. Like many hon. Members, I know from personal contacts how valuable such respite care can be. I wonder whether full advantage is being taken of the variety of types of respite care provided through the voluntary organisations. This is being investigated in the demonstration districts that I mentioned, and there may be scope for advance in that area.
It is clear that there are hundreds of thousands of informal carers, but there has so far been no systematic information about their circumstances and numbers. The hon. Member for Oldham, West gave figures of 5·5 million carers and £5·3 billion. The latter, which is the amount alleged to have been saved as a result of existing policies, is a fanciful calculation.
Two major national surveys by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys will provide hard information. The general household survey has, for the first time, explicitly asked people whether they care for a dependent person, and those results should begin to be available at the end of the year. The major national survey of disabled people
1128
includes questions about who cares for the disabled person, and it will provide information early in 1988 about the services that families with a dependent disabled person receive. The information from those two surveys will enable planning for community care to take better account of the needs of informal carers.
The comprehensive statistical information that will be provided by the OPCS surveys will be complemented by a programme of research being undertaken by the social policy research unit of the University of York, funded by the DHSS.
The initial social work service project is being followed up with two national seminars—one in London last month and the other to be held soon in Leeds—about support for informal carers specifically directed at those concerned with community nursing services.
For several years, the Department has supported national voluntary organisations directly or indirectly interested in informal carers through its general scheme of section 64 grants. The major national voluntary organisations concerned with the needs of client groups of dependent people, such as Age Concern, MENCAP and MIND, receive grants under the scheme and take an interest in informal carers as significant contributors to the well-being of the client group concerned. Other national voluntary organisations more directly concerned with the needs of informal carers also receive grants from the Department.
The hon. Member for Oldham, West mentioned the valuable work done by the Association of Carers. He will know that it receives a grant from the DHSS, as do Crossroads Care Attendant Scheme, Contact a Family, the National Association of Carers and their Elderly Dependants and other similar voluntary organisations at national and local level, all of which make significant contributions that are supported actively in the constituencies by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
Meals on wheels is an extremely valuable service and an excellent example of productive collaboration between a social service department and a voluntary organisation—the Women's Royal Voluntary Service. The WRVS is already doing much, and I pay tribute to its work, which I hope will expand and develop in the months ahead. Many people, especially elderly people, depend upon the delivery of a meal to the door by the meals on wheels service. More that 28 million meals are provided every year, often by the dedicated members of the WRVS. As part of our search to improve the value of services, we have commissioned several research projects from the WRVS to test the feasibility and acceptability of offering alternatives to the traditional cooked meal delivery service, such as escorted shopping trips. We have asked the personal social services research unit at the University of Kent to carry out a study of the present position. We hope to set up a seminar to consider the subject, especially the different options for future development, early in 1987.
There is greater scope—I am buttressed in that belief by the conversations that I have had with Dame Barbara Shenfield, the leader of the WRVS—that we can do more. I hope that we can obtain better co-operation between the statutory agencies and the voluntary workers. We have made substantial progress in providing community care through, for example, joint finance.
Mr. Meacher: That is a joke.
Mr. Hayhoe: The hon. Gentleman says that that is a joke. When we came to power in 1979, the total spent on such programmes was £63·5 million.
Mr. Meacher: That was seven years ago.
Mr. Hayhoe: It has increased to £670 million since then. Of course, the hon. Gentleman always wishes to denigrate what we have done, because the Labour Government did so little when they were responsible. We have also made considerable progress in taking long-stay children out of large mental handicap hospitals and putting them into better provision in the community, including small NHS units for children who need health care. More than 2,400 children were in such hospitals at the end of 1980. At the end of 1984, there were fewer than 700, including those children in short-term care. Our latest estimates show that the numbers are now much lower.
We are committed to providing efficient and effective services for those who need them. For too long, the central key role played by families, friends and neighbours in community care has been ignored. Of course, it is not true to say that nothing more needs to be done by statutory and voluntary service providers before adequate support is provided for all informal carers. We have recognised their key importance and brought it to the notice of those planning and providing services locally. We are developing and exploring new and better ways of providing support. We are undertaking the research to provide solid evidence for future planning. I believe that that is a record of progress, and it lays the foundations for significant further progress over the next few years. I commend the amendment to the House.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. Time is very limited and many hon. Members wish to speak. I appeal for very short speeches.
5.31 pm
Mr. Jack Ashley: The Minister for Health has just proved that he is incapable, not only of taking care of carers, but of making a decent speech on the issue. He accused my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) of being pessimistic, but my hon. Friend was reflecting the deep and profound pessimism of carers. The right hon. Gentleman should ask his hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security, who has responsibility for the disabled, what was said to him by the deputation of carers I took to see him a few months ago. The carers were profoundly pessimistic, as my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West explained. That was the reason for my hon. Friend's pessimism. He was reflecting the reality of the situation.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to an article in The Sunday Times. I cannot see how any Minister could read such an appalling and tragic article and refuse to do anything positive and constructive for carers. It beggars belief that the Minister could use the example of an article in The Sunday Times and make the bromide speech that he made today. The right hon. Gentleman said he wa glad that the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) was making progress, but he surgically removed from the Bill the provision relating to carers.
1130
The right hon. Gentleman said that the figures cited by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West were fanciful. The right hon. Gentleman does not know the real figures, so he attacked my hon. Friend. The right hon. Gentleman has not taken the trouble to find out what they are. He said that the figures would emerge in 1988, but carers cannot wait until then. The Conservative party has been in power for seven years and Ministers for Health have had sufficient time to ascertain the position. The Minister said that he recognised the importance of carers, but he still made a wordy speech which offered no real progress. He has not satisfied the House on all those issues. In fact, I am sorry to say that he made a bad speech. His speech disappointed me, because I had hoped that hon. Members on both sides of the House would agree on this issue.
The debate is not about compassion; it is about justice. People have become carers because they love the people for whom they care and because they have compassion for them. It is unjust for society and it is wrong for the Government to expect those people to become virtual slaves in caring for disabled people. Severe disability damages people's lives. It is wrong that a disability should damage the lives of those caring for disabled people. In fact, it devastates their lives, yet that occurs all too often. It is unjust, unfair and intolerable.
The Government's amendment seems similar to the early-day motion which was supported by hon. Members on both sides of the House, but there are some significant differences. The early-day motion asked the Government
"to ensure that … adequate respite care … a considerable improvement in the level of support … a flexible system of cash and other … services, such as home helps and home nursing"—
and that
"the invalid care allowance is made available to married women".
The amendment pays warm tribute to carers. We can all say that we pay tribute to carers. However, the amendment uses the phrase
"in line with its stated policies … and the availability of resources".
We all know that that is shorthand for saying that funding will not be provided and that the money is not available. That is what the Government are saying. The Minister's fine words mean Only that, because of a lack of resources, the carers will not receive the money.
The amendment refers to the European Court judgment and says that the Government will carefully consider it. That is not good enough. We do not want the judgment just to be carefully considered by the Government. We want it to be accepted by them. There is a great difference between considering and accepting.
It is impossible to overstate the importance of the issue to women. There are some men carers but basically it is a women's issue. A few months ago, in the presence of my wife, I attended a meeting of carers at county hall across the river. I went as their friend. In the 20 years that I have been a Member of Parliament I have never had such a rough ride. Those women carers, of many creeds and kinds—some black, some brown and some white—were unanimous in their bitterness at being exploited. When I tried to explain that, along with many hon. Members, I was campaigning for carers, they were vindictive. They said that it did not matter what we were trying to do. The only thing they cared about was what we were doing and what we had accomplished. I could not say that we had

1131
accomplished anything. I have never known women who felt so bitter. They are treated badly. They feel that they are abused by authority. A loving task to them has become a prison sentence, where no adequate support is provided.
Some of the country's 1·25 million carers are driven to despair, are in ill health and in need of care. Some carers are prisoners of their own conscience. Cash is the most important requirement. It has been estimated, as my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West said, that more than £5 billion is saved every year. I pay a warm tribute to Judith Oliver of the Association of Carers for the marvellous work that she and her colleagues have done and to Pat Osborne of the Crossroads association for the wonderful work that that group has done. Those associations are demanding cash, and rightly so, because cash is crucial.
Back-up services are also being demanded. There is no round-the-clock nursing help and carers are neglected, especially at weekends. There is little respite provision. Above all, carers need a break. They cannot stand the eternal grind 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year. Yet often, when they contact the emergency services, they find that they get little help. Carers are not given adequate training. They are given a rough deal. As my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West rightly emphasised, the more disabled a person is, the more difficult it is to get help. Carers are taken for granted by national Government, local authorities and the public.
I have no doubt that the main reason why carers are shabbily treated is that they are women. This is a women's issue. If most men were carers, responses and attitudes would be very different. People look down on women. The Government look down on women. Women are shabbily treated, and women carers are the most shabbily treated of all. That is the main reason why the Government pay scant regard to them. I hope that the Government will pay due regard to this debate, because carers can easily sink and become submerged non-persons unless we can help them. There is a strong feeling among carers that they want not just cash but recognition and a sense of identity. That is what they require.
I suggest that we should provide for carers a genuine new deal, which includes eight points. First, we should give carers an honoured place in society. Secondly, we should recognise their wonderful value and make civilised and adequate provision for them. Thirdly, there should be adequate Government recognition of the serious problems hidden behind the sad curtains and the lonely wheelchairs. Fourthly, there should be an end to discrimination against married women and co-habitees. They should be paid the invalid care allowance now rather than have to wait until the Government are dragged kicking and screaming by the European Court to undertake reform. Fifthly, there should be a careful assessment of the role, capacity and functions of all carers and the burdens that they relieve. Sixthly, home helps and nursing helps should be made available when needed and for as long as required. Seventhly, the provision of expert care is needed so that carers can have a break, rather than a breakdown. Eighthly, there should be planned provision of information and advice about benefits, services and options.
1132
Carers are exploited because they care and are dutiful, because they love their dependent relatives, because they want to help and because they are women. It is time that we ended this scandal and gave them justice.
5.43 pm
Sir David Price: I feel somewhat upstaged by the speeches of the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) and of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Health. Those who follow the Order Paper may recall that on 10 February I tabled a not dissimilar private Member's motion. On listening to the opening speeches in this debate, particularly that of the hon. Member for Oldham, West, I could not help but feel that if I rather than the hon. Gentleman had opened the debate—I say this in due modesty—I might have created a better atmosphere for the debate. Above all, this is a subject on which we should try to strike a consensus. I shall not, therefore, reply to some of the more partisan of the hon. Gentleman's points or take up some points raised by the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley).
I start with the proposition that many more dependent people are cared for at home than are cared for in the ordinary hospitals, institutions and rest homes of all the statutory, charitable and private groups combined. That is our point of departure. To set it out in a little more detail, I shall give the House a round up of the facts, some of which have been mentioned.
More than 1·25 million people are caring for a relative or friend who is severely or very severely disabled due to illness, accident or the infirmities of old age. About 100,000 of those carers have been doing so for 10 years or more and some have been doing so for more than 30 years. More than 5·5 million people are supporting a person who because of age, illness or disability could not live safely or comfortably without the help of the carer. More women now care for an elderly or disabled relative than care for a child under 16. That fact, which has not yet come up, is one of the most penetrating facts to grasp in the debate. As the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South said, four out of five carers are women.
Recently published reports confirm that there is an inverse ratio of support for carers—the more handicapped the dependent relative, the less support is made available. Research in Yorkshire has shown that the more disabled the relative, the fewer the people able to undertake the care because it is too difficult and onerous. That means that volunteers and neighbours find it increasingly difficult to give meaningful help as the disability becomes more advanced and severe.
If 1 per cent. of those caring just for the elderly suddenly gave up, our health and social services would find their budgets being increased immediately by 20 per cent.
Mr. Allen McKay: That is an interesting point. The social services department in Barnsley estimates that its budget would probably increase by twice as much again. I notice that the hon. Members for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price), for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mrs. McCurley), for Cheltenham (Mr. Irvine) and for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) and 43 other colleagues have signed early-day motion 299. I have been listening intently to the hon. Member for Eastleigih, and I hope that he will join us in the Division Lobby.
Sir David Price: If the hon. Gentleman had listened, he would have heard me say that I wanted the debate to achieve a consensus. I was referring to a major point. The hon. Gentleman can keep his party points for his party's committees.
It is estimated that those caring for the elderly at home save the statutory services £5·3 billion a year. It is important to take on board also the fact that the cost of a bed in a residential establishment is between £140 and £500 a week. By contrast, the maximum rate of attendance allowance available only to the most severely disabled living at home is £30·60. The invalid care allowance is only £23 a week.
That puts the role of the carer and the scope of the problem within statistical dimensions. The problem is severe. It covers age spectrum. It is important to remember that many carers are themselves elderly people.
Mr. Robert N. Wareing: rose—
Sir David Price: No, I have given way once already, and I am trying obediently to be brief.
It is generally acknowledged that there are a number of hon. Members who have personal experience of caring. They will be with me when I say that the reality of caring for someone whom one loves is so private and intimate that even in a debate like this the House will not expect us to share our personal experiences. I certainly do not intend to do so. Suffice it to say that most carers have consciously chosen to look after their dependent relatives at home because they love them. They do not, therefore, want to hand the job over to anyone else.
Caring for someone who is heavily dependent is continuous, tiring, stressful, and restrictive. It can impose serious strains on other relationships within the family. Many of us have constituents with a severely disabled child and have seen how this can have repercussions on other children in the family who are not disabled. Outside help at key times on both a regular and a one-off basis can make the difference between total breakdown and a successful and loving partnership between the carer and the cared for.
That leads me on to consider—and this is what future discussion should be about—the different forms of support that are needed. In the interests of brevity I shall try to go straight to the heart of the matter. I invite the House to consider the various ideas put forward by the Association of Carers. Time prevents my going through them, but I would mention one point which comes in its submission to hon. Members:
"It does appear at the moment that the presence of a carer is often seen by statutory services to obviate the need for supportive services, whereas carers are almost invariably in need of help in the very onerous tasks which they have opted to undertake out of love."
I think that this is true.
I should like to draw the attention of the House to the report of the Select Committee on Social Services and the 101 recommendations that we made. Let me emphasise that we made them on an agreed basis, across the party spectrum, which is the spirit that I wish to introduce, and maintain, in this debate. I hope that when replying to the debate my right hon. Friend will declare the Government's support for those measures.
Each of us who takes part in this debate will have his own suggestions for improvement. We have already heard
1134
a number from the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South. I should like to suggest a few briefly, in encapsulated form.
We need more back-up in the home. This means more home helps and more meals on wheels. I pay tribute to the progress which has been made, but we have only 50,000 home helps in England, and that is not enough. There is uneven provision between men and women. In support of that I quote from a recent report of the Equal Opportunities Commission:
"Evidence presented in our report shows that nearly 60 per cent. of male carers studied received home helps compared with only 34 per cent. of female carers, and 28 per cent. of men had the support of the meals on wheels service compared with 16 per cent. of the women. It seems services which provide direct help with the daily domestic routine are more likely to be provided if the carer is a man. So the work and health of women carers is affected to a greater degree."
We would like to see progress made in this area, not only for its own sake, but because this is an inequality which I find unacceptable.
We need more medical support in the home. My right hon. Friend referred to the primary care report which has just come out. We have to build on that. We must support the general practitioner service, which is the linch pin. We ought to extend the role of the community nurse, the community physiotherapist and the occupational therapist. In my part of the world they are extremely helpful to the handicapped.
We need an extension of the care assistant or care attendant. I call in aid the development of the care attendance service in Hampshire. On the hospital side, we need to have relief on call, what in our report we refer to as the "revolving door". If a chance is taken in putting people back into the community and the carers run into difficulties, they can by this means get those people back into hospital. This may have to be done at awkward times—which is when it nearly always happens—and not during the conventional surgery hours.
There is a need for the carer to have time off from caring. Age Concern once described the life of a carer of someone with dementia as the 36-hour day. Earlier, I heard people talking about problems of overtime. If one is caring for someone who is severely disabled, there is no question of normal working hours or overtime; it is a total commitment. So the need for relief is often urgent.
What happens when the carer runs out of steam? We all get these tragedies in our surgeries—a mother and father, now old-age pensioners, who, having looked after a severely disabled child who is now aged 40 or 45, can no longer provide the necessary care because they have literally run out of steam.
I support all the pleas to my right hon. Friend to get the invalid care allowance right. I have raised the issue, as have many right hon. and hon. Members. There is no longer any justification for not extending it to married women. As I said in a letter to The Times a few months ago, I very much hope that my right hon. Friends will be able to do it gracefully before they are compelled to do it by the European Court.
I hope that I have said enough to demonstrate the importance of carers to our nation. We need them. We cannot get on without them. I hope, too, that I have demonstrated that carers need more back-up, and more support, especially professional support, if they are to fulfil their role as carers and still have some personal life of their own.

1135
I beg the House not to treat carers as if they were an object of pity or compassion. They do their caring willingly, as part of their role in life, out of love.
5.56 pm
Mr. David Alton: The hon. Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price) has spoken with considerable knowledge and a good track record in putting forward his point of view. He has set up an interesting agenda of proposals which will probably find cross-party support in this Chamber. Above and beyond the debate tonight, there is plenty there for which we can gather a consensus. But such is the nature of these debates that this evening at 7 o'clock we shall have to decide which way to vote on the motion. I can find nothing in the motion with which to disagree, and I am glad that it is before us for debate.
I might perhaps enter a number of caveats and additional points, but some of these have already been touched on and, because I know that other Members want to take part in the debate, I shall try not to detain the House.
The first of my three caveats is a plea for a proper balance in dealing with carers between the voluntary sector and the statutory sector. I know from my experience as president of the Liverpool old people's hostels association and from discussions with the Merseyside council for voluntary service and Liverpool young persons advisory service that they are very stretched for funds. They believe also that they are having to deal with a local authority which almost seems philosophically opposed to the spirit of voluntarism, and that can make life difficult for the voluntary organisations. If adequate support is to be given to those who care and who do the caring work, resources and support must be provided for voluntary organisations. Although I am glad to see a reference in the motion to increased support for voluntary organisations and agencies, I should like the Government to look at ways in which their position might be better protected.
Another caveat concerns the division of responsibility between health and social services departments. Often they are hopelessly unco-ordinated. To rectify this, I would like to see the health and social services provision for adults amalgamated under directly elected regional government. I would also like to see the social services provision for children integrated into a family courts system.
My third caveat is about flexibility, of which there needs to be more if we are to give more help to carers—a point on which the hon. Member for Eastleigh touched. Flexibility in the provision of care requires the breaking down of the entrenched intransigence of some groups of people, regrettably some of them trade unionists who defend working practices and insist that care may be provided only at certain times—for example, not at weekends. I hope that the Opposition Front Bench will use its considerable influence with the trade unions to ensure that some of this inflexibility is broken down.
In addition, we should like to see a charter for carers that would establish their inalienable right to an income that is independent of their dependants. Secondly, there should be access to information, which is often denied by the professional to the carer. Thirdly, as other hon. Members have said, there must be respite care, which is
1136
so important. Fourthly, there must be increased governmental encouragement and support for organisations such as the Association of Carers, with opportunities for more training to be provided under their aegis.
Enhanced nursery provision would enable women to have more flexibility in caring for children or relatives and would increase opportunities for women generally. Our record is not good. In France, 90 per cent. of three-year-olds attend nursery. In West Germany, the figure is 70 per cent. Here, it is only 2·8 per cent. My city of Liverpool intended to open six new nursery classes in 1985–86, but the Secretary of State withheld his approval. The authority will again seek approval for 1986–87. I hope that this time the Secretary of State will give the go-ahead.
These are the caveats and addenda that I would enter, while supporting the Opposition motion. Like the Government in their amendment, we commend the estimated 5·5 million people who are supporting disabled or elderly relatives at home. We have all been sent details of how many it is estimated are in our constituencies. I am told that there are 9,500 carers in my constituency. However, we repudiate the Government's contention that they are giving adequate support to the carers. Like the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley), I feel that the Social Security Bill, which should have been a golden opportunity, makes no specific provision for carers, and some will be up to £6·90 a week worse off because of the changes being made to long-term supplementary benefit.
What thanks is that to people who have sacrificed so much for the good of others? What sort of thanks is that to those who save the state millions of pounds? If just 10 per cent. of those who are cared for at home had to be looked after in residential institutions, the public cost would be over £1 billion a year. In comparison, the cost of extending invalid care allowance to married women—a move for which there is all-party agreement, and which would be of real help to the carers—would be less than one tenth of that £1 billion a year, at approximately £85 million a year.
The key to the Government's intentions comes in that immortal phrase used by the Minister for Health, "the availability of resources". If a Government can find, as this Government did a few weeks ago, £1 billion to give away in tax reductions, and can look next year to a further £4 billion for cuts in taxes, why can it not find greater resources to support the carers? That is the touchstone on which the Government's sincerity should be judged. By that touchstone, we shall vote against them tonight.
6.3 pm
Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: I am fast reaching the stage when I find it hard to take seriously the views expressed by the Labour party, because its answer to all difficulties is the profligate application of a cheque book—somebody else's. I have been closely involved in caring for carers for many years. It is no news that their difficulties are not only financial. There has been a certain amount of rivalry over voluntary organisations, and I speak on behalf of the National Council of Carers and their Elderly Dependants, now reaching its 21st birthday and so well in advance of many others who have more recently joined the debate on the needs of carers.
The council was founded at a time when nearly all the caring for elderly relatives was done by unmarried women—the single daughter staying at home looking after the

1137
elderly relatives. The invalid care allowance, which was introduced in 1976, was brought into existence largely under the pressure of organisations such as the council.
I share the views of those who hope that the Government will find it within their power to find the £100 million necessary to pay the invalid care allowance to married women. I am content for that to wait for the fully considered judgment from the European Court, and until it has been considered by the Government and they have made it the subject of a report to the House. However, having been through all those necessary steps, I have every confidence that the Government will do the right thing by the many married women caring for dependants. I pay tribute to the Government for the steps that they have already taken in extending the invalid care allowance to non-relatives and doubling the amount of part-time earnings that can be allowed before entitlement to the allowance is affected.
I wish to speak particularly about the carers of the elderly. It is easy to throw all carers into the same discussion, as they have many aspects in common, but they also have distinguishing features. For example, there is no doubt that elderly parents will be very much a growing part of our community as the number of residents over 85 doubles in the next century. Increasingly, elderly people will be looking after the very elderly.
Many contributors have said that it is too easy to take carers for granted, and to assume that all is well for them until they reach breaking point. I hope that the debate will highlight some of their needs and the ways that they can be given help before they reach that breaking point.
We have spent too little time concentrating on some of the good practices that have been established throughout the country. In my constituency, I have been consistently impressed by pioneering projects and ideas about meeting the needs of the elderly and carers. It has become fashionable to say that we always want more without looking carefully at what is being achieved, learning from our successes and then trying to spread good practices to other areas.
In my constituency I have visited many projects for sheltered housing, cluster housing, good neighbour schemes and, above all, schemes using telecommunications systems to keep in touch with dependants. The recent census returns showed a doubling of the number of people living on their own. People are increasingly reluctant to live with their relatives, whether semi-dependent or independent. Using telecommunications networks is the way to ensure that the welfare of the elderly is provided for without their losing privacy.
It is too easy to say that we need more resources for health care, but we have had a 24 per cent. increase in real terms in spending on the Health Service. Above all, I applaud the 63,000 more midwives and nurses since 1979. I hope that we shall be able to discuss the role of nurses in the light of the report by Julia Cumberlege. Nurses are independent professionals who should have increasing scope for practising on their own, and are particularly important in meeting the needs of dependants.
During the autumn, I was fortunate enough to spend a morning in my constituency with a district nurse and a health visitor and I was constantly impressed by the new practices, developments and schemes available for the elderly. It is more fashionable to say that we do not have enough, and in many areas there is room for improvement, but when one goes out on the twilight scheme, which
1138
offers help to put dependants to bed in the evenings, and many other schemes, one realises the recent remarkable achievements.
I should like to share with the House my pride in the new geriatric hospital in my constituency, which has cost 1·2 million to build. For too long, health care has too easily concentrated on the dramatic, exciting and acute operations rather than on the less exciting Cinderella services for the mentally ill, the mentally handicapped and the elderly. It is too easy not to recognise the great redirection of resources, not always met with favour by the power leaders in the NHS, but making an enormous difference for those in need of health care.
Much mention has been made in the debate about the role of voluntary organisations. These organisations do the best work and the work which we can be most proud of in our country. Many voluntary organisations have not been mentioned—for example, the Alzheimers Disease Society and the Red Cross. Many voluntary organisations organise schemes and work together with statutory authorities.
We have not so far in the debate mentioned the needs of former carers. Reference has been made to those people who give up five, 10, 15 or 20 years of their lives to care for a young or an old dependent relative. That may result in the carer becoming extremely isolated as the dependent relative's needs take up all the carer's time and attention. When that relative dies, the carer can be quite bereft and take some time before he is ready to return to employment. I hope that the Minister will consider whether it is possible in the provision of benefits to give that carer longer after the death of the dependent relative before the relevant benefits are lost. As a member of the National Council of Carers and their Elderly Dependants said, "Carers cannot walk from the graveside straight to the jobcentre."
Carers have financial needs and there are extra burdens to caring quite apart from the loss of earnings. I am confident that, with due consideration and careful planning, the Government will find their way to keep in line with the rulings of the European Court. Carers also have practical needs—relief and respite care, day arid night sitting services, day centres, lunch clubs, recreation and leisure facilities. It is vital that there should be joint planning and careful surveys of the needs in specific areas. It is also vital that there are mechanisms for offering information and advice to carers.
There is, above all, one area which is so easily undervalued by those who see everything in basic financial terms which requires consideration—the emotional needs of carers. Carers are isolated and unacknowledged. Their status needs to be raised in the eyes of us all, and local authorities, voluntary organisations and professional bodies at every level must be aware of carers. I hope that the tributes paid in the debate to the commitment of informal carers will lead to a greater appreciation and understanding of those unsung heroes throughout the country.
6.12 pm
Mr. Bill Michie: I am acutely aware of the shortage of time and I will therefore speak for no more than five or six minutes, not because this serious debate does not deserve more of my time, but because many of my colleagues wish to speak.
Most hon. Members are aware of the problems in our constituencies and know of the many thousands of people

1139
who are affected by the lack of resources for caring for loved ones, neighbours or families. Some 12,000 people are affected in my constituency and at least 1,200 of them are severely handicapped and have, as already mentioned, extra problems which are difficult to resolve immediately unless more resources are available. A special kind of person is required to deal with such cases.
I believe that the main argument relates to resources. The hon. Member for Surrey, South-West (Mrs. Bottomley) said that it was all very well for Opposition Members to talk about providing more money but that that money always comes from someone else's cheque book. I do not know who these aliens are, these "someone elses", these people who do not appear to belong to our society. The hon. Lady seemed to imply that they were removed from reality. I do not believe that many people would object to helping the people who help others. The cheque book mentality is not a good argument for inaction.
Sheffield has done a great deal of work to help carers. On many occasions the district council in Sheffield has told me that there are three aspects about carers, and they have been outlined already in the debate. The first is that practical help and flexibility are required. At present there are services in Sheffield which do the best that they can. However, local authorities generally find it difficult to give the support at the right time in the right place. There was a story of one local authority which could not provide services early in the morning, late at night or at the weekend because it could not afford it, yet it could afford to offer places in homes which could cost much more. We must locate the resources in the right places. Flexibility in that area is vital.
Sheffield is trying through experimental areas such as the scheme at Ecclesfield to provide such flexibility and Sheffield hopes to introduce further changes to help the carers who are caring for 24 hours a day. It is a fact of life that, without additional staff, it will cost almost £175,000 in premium rate payments to fund that experimental project. Such a sum is not easy for local authorities to come by.
Secondly, local authorities have the problem of finding enough cash for adaptions. It is vital that carers should have such adaptions in their homes. In Sheffield, in 1985–86, expenditure on adaptions was £1middot;2 million. There have been many debates over the past year or two about public expenditure. It is obvious that, in relation to revenue, that money will not be forthcoming and therefore we will have problems in sustaining programmes which we believe to be essential for adaptions.
My third point relates to respite care. Occasionally people want a break, particularly those who care for the severely handicapped. They need time to restore morale and recover physically and emotionally from such caring. I know that some of the carers in my constituency will not ask for such a respite service, but I believe that such a provision should at least be available in a civilised society. It is impossible to continue day and night caring without some respite.
There is an early-day motion which is more or less in line with the motion we are debating. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Sir J. Osborn) signed that early-day motion and I hope that he will be voting with the Opposition tonight. Most of my colleagues have said that the needs of carers are desperate. Their needs are not being
1140
shouted about because they exist behind closed doors and caring is done in a quiet and sincere manner. That does not mean that the need is not great. The need is present and the House and the rest of society have a responsibility to fulfill our commitment to carers.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has set an admirable example. If other hon. Members do the same, I shall be able to call all those who wish to speak.
6.18pm
Mr. Andrew Rowe: As I was one of the proposers on behalf of the parliamentary panel for the personal social services which put forward the early-day motion which has been adopted by the Opposition as their motion tonight, some explanation as to why I intend to support the Government may be required. However, that is not too difficult to explain. The Opposition carefully chose the motion to scourge the Government's record and in a way which paid no heed, for example, to the galloping inflation which pauperised many of the people who now need help from the state because their savings were stripped by out-of-control public expenditure which made it impossible to make sensible provision for their later years.
I will be supporting the Government. However, I should like to make it clear that we are discussing a major problem. There is a huge bulge in the number of elderly people needing to be cared for. We must plan for that bulge just as carefully as we plan for any bulge in school or university populations.
We are sadly very much a behind-closed-doors society. It is the dream of most of us to rush back from our day's work, slam our front door in the face of the world, and stay at home with perhaps a small number of friends or by ourselves. That is running away from the thought of any commitment to others. We must ask ourselves whether that really is the way forward for our society. If it is, it will be the end of the willingness to care. It has been well pointed out that in the enormous increase in the number of step-families there will be a huge increase in the number of kin but perhaps a considerable falling off in the commitment of those kin to individuals within that relationship.
As we have heard today, carers have a range of needs, but one of the things that they need most is a 24-hour response. For reasons which I entirely understand, carers, having committed themselves to looking after their loved ones, are too reluctant to accept help from volunteers. They see it as a job in which they have developed considerable skill and they are reluctant to share it with volunteers. They need help in coming to terms with what has been demonstrated to be a remarkable source of help.
Secondly, we need more part-timers. I could not agree more with the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) when he says that the trade unions should be encouraged in every possible way to make it possible for people to respond outside the ordinary working day.
Thirdly, organisations such as Crossroads need support. It is enormously important that organisations which are not yet big enough to have formed major fundraising arms should be given a great deal more help with their headquarters' costs than organisations which have grown used to raising their own money. That is important.

1141
The delay which accompanied the grant to the headquarters of the Association of Carers made its life difficult. Therefore, we ask for both speed and rather more understanding of the needs of the headquarters of such organisations.
To provide care through the local authority bureaucracy is expensive, not because local authorities are unduly costly—some are, some are not—but because it is difficult for them to provide care cheaply. Liaison officers will be enormously costly, however worthy they may be. There have been examples of women meeting together and forming their own co-operative to provide care and that is a major way forward for helping carers to find the sort of 24-hour response that they need.
With the huge growth in demand, there is a need for new sources of funds. Ever since the war we have had a society which has put an enormous premium on people spending their money on their house. That is their principal form of saving. That is the most immobile form of saving and the most emotionally tied-up form of saving. It leads to poverty because people cannot bring themselves to trade down-market to free funds. They find it enormously difficult to shake off the emotional ties of their home and so they remain isolated from other people who might be more able to provide them with help. As a society we need to look seriously at ways of helping people in such a situation to release the funds which are tied up in their home. Some schemes are already available, but we need to look at the matter much more coherently and consistently than we have done.
I commend the Government for carrying out research into the best way of allocating what will always be, by definition, inadequate resources. However, their research and the findings which will come from it will cry out for more resources. What we are doing is, perfectly properly, postponing for a moment the spending of money so that we know exactly how best to spend it. But the money will have to be found. As our society begins to grow even faster—it has had several years of consistent growth—each of us should ask whether we would not prefer to spend some of our new prosperity on this neglected source of help.
6.24 pm
Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe). I am vice-chairman of the social services support group in the House of Commons and it is my intention to vote for the motion before us. The words of the motion are identical to those of early-day motion 299 for which the hon. Gentleman and I acted as sponsors a few weeks ago and which 147 hon. Members have signed. If it was right to sign the motion then, by what token is it not right to vote for it today?
Indeed, I am a little surprised that the Government have not found a way of adopting the motion. I realise that the last part relating to the invalid care allowance is rather difficult at this time, but, as was said in another place recently—some hon. Members were there—the sooner the nettle is grasped the better. The Government will have to grasp it.
Many of the points in the motion appeal to hon. Members on both sides of the House, across party divides. The sort of divisions that have arisen tonight are unnecessary. We should be finding a way forward. The right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) put forward a specific eight-point plan. The hon.
1142
Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price) put forward an action programme, as did the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton). People have been looking for specific steps to try to reach the common objectives that we all share.
We can argue about what resources are needed and how they should be funded, but everybody acknowledges that ideally greater resources are needed and that they should be directed to the right places. The Minister said that no details of the numbers and circumstances of carers are available. He referred to the general household survey later this year and the national survey of disabled people in 1988. Those two surveys, which are all very well, will give us global statistics, but they will not give us detailed local figures. They may show what resources are needed, but the question that then arises is where to allocate those resources, to whom and to answer what needs.
In Committee on the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Bill, the Minister said:
"It would not be right to put a statutory obligation upon local authorities to assess carers' needs."—[Official Report, Standing Committee C, 5 February 1986; c. 68.]
It is necessary to assess carers' needs. New clause 10, eventually brought forward by the Government, contains the words:
"the local authority shall … have regard to the ability of that other person"—
the carer—
"to continue to provide such care on a regular basis."—[Official Report, 11 April 1986; Vol. 95, c. 523.]
If the local authority is to have regard to the ability of the carer, what is the difference between that and trying to quantify that regard in terms of an assessment of what is necessary to provide the support services? We are in danger of playing with words here, when in our heart of hearts we all know that we need to be able to quantify and specify the requirements in detail in order to ensure that resources are available to meet those needs.
The Minister made the point that promises should not go beyond the country's capacity to fulfil them. I was a little disturbed last night when in another place it was suggested that the pressure to pay the invalid care allowance—we all hope that the Government will be forced by the build up of pressure to do that—could restrict the money available for other purposes to help disabled people. I realise that all Governments have a limited pot of gold from which to obtain resources, but there is a general mood, not only in the House, but in the countries of these islands, that we require a shift of resources in the direction of those needing care.
One reason for that is that we have not done enough in the past. That is not a party political point. Many people who provide care have not been supported enough, in the past and they need more in the future.
Secondly, there is the bulge in the elderly population, which the hon. Member for Mid-Kent mentioned. The increasing elderly senile population will have an enormous impact over the next 20 years. We have seen that happening over the past decade, and the momentum is growing. The pressure is there. We are not yet getting our act together to meet that need. Therefore, we must get the resources together to ensure that we are not caught out.
The position of the elderly and mentally infirm is very serious. They have requirements that carers cannot hope to contain within the community unless they get the range of support services that other hon. Members have detailed. I shall not repeat them now.

1143
As the hon. Member for Surrey, South-West (Mrs. Bottomley) said, we need a survey of needs in particular localities. That comes back to the question of specific assessment. We cannot get away from it. Therefore, I hope that the Minister can give an assurance that when the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Bill, which is critical to what we are discussing tonight, passes through another place, as I expect it will, probably unamended, the Government will find the necessary resources to ensure that it is implemented at an early date. I realise that the local authority clauses cannot be implemented in this financial year because of the constraints on local authorities. However, I hope that the Government will give a firm undertaking that the resources will be available to meet the needs of carers from the beginning of the next financial year onwards. I hope that will be a token of the Government's determination to do what is necessary to help carers.
6.31 pm
Mrs. Anna McCurley: There seems to have been a little fuss from the Opposition about the fact that some Conservative Members supported an early-day motion which approximates to their motion this evening. I believe that there was no harm in supporting the idea, but a little realism has been injected by the Government in the amendment.
I should like to speak about the elderly in Scotland. What we have been talking about tonight came home visibly to me when I recently visited Killallan house, in Houston, in my constituency, where a 97–year-old was celebrating her birthday and her 77–year-old son and daughter were visiting her. They were the fortunate ones. Most people in that position are still at home without help.
The problem of elderly carers with even more elderly parents or dependants is becoming more acute. Those in the greatest need are now those who are either unable or unwilling to articulate their problem because they do not want to be a burden on society. Many of them come from a generation which believes that love and duty are not bound up with money. Sometimes I believe that the Opposition do not understand that, no matter how little people are paid, they are still willing to do the work.
There is the problem of the elderly looking after the aged. However, for many younger carers there is the problem of loss of income combined with the high cost of the much needed services such as additional laundry, additional heating and lighting, aids for incontinence and special diets.
There are roughly 125,000 carers in Scotland. They are mostly women who undoubtedly have had a poorer deal than men. Their job will never get better or easier. Age, decline and ultimate loss are the end products of their hard work. It is estimated that the savings to the Scottish budget through the hard and unpaid work of carers is about £660 million per annum.
However, the Government have demonstrated their concern in Scotland. They have provided additional resources for keeping people within their own homes, with carers in mind. The emphasis is undoubtedly on care in the community and the SHAPE priorities and SHARE allocation of the Health Service shows that clearly.
1144
Additional funds have been provided and recently the Minister responsible for health in Scotland gave an additional £250,000 to help the elderly in their homes.
We are very responsive in Scotland to voluntary bodies such as Age Concern when they suggest projects. One project did a survey of dementia sufferers and their carers in Glasgow. We responded very swiftly and provided additional finance.
The benefits which are available must be taken up. It is important for those who are entitled to benefits to ensure that they get what they deserve. Admittedly, at present the benefit system is a tangled forest and there are many outstanding inequities, but we are steering a path through it. Age, sex and marital status can exclude one from benefits and we are well aware that married women are excluded from the invalid care allowance. That must ultimately change. Also, divorced women are not eligible if they are receiving maintenance. That seems unduly harsh.
I hope that the Government are willing to continue to move towards a more equitable position, not through the force of the courts but by humane evolution of the system. Of course, the cost implications are huge and we cannot do it overnight. However, it is important that we aim to get things right now. In the next decade the number of over-75s will increase by 33 per cent. That is a worrying figure for a society whose resources are created by fewer and fewer people. Seventeen per cent. of the Scottish population is now of pensionable age. The number will increase slightly between now and 2011, but the number of over-75s will have increased by 19 per cent. and the over-85s by 80 per cent.
It is interesting that 35 per cent. of all Scottish households have an old-age pensioner, but 31 per cent. of our pensioners live on their own. Therefore, additional resources need to be put into the system. Of the female carers in Scotland, 42 per cent. are more than 60 years old and 70 per cent. are more than 50 years old. The average age of a carer in Scotland is 61. That is a time in life when one needs a little help for oneself and should not be in a position where one has to use mental and physical energy to such a great extent. Those people do it willingly, voluntarily and out of love.
I add my congratulations to those which have already been given to the voluntary services for their help. The National Council for Carers and their Elderly Dependants is grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, South-West (Mrs. Bottomley) for all the help that she gives it. Without that body the services would be under a severe constraint. My contact with the council has been quite frequent recently and I have found it a magnificent body.
Many other agencies are helping to keep carers happy and to prepare the elderly for old age. I must mention the Women's Royal Voluntary Service because it is the true embodiment of a voluntary organisation. It husbands its resources very well and it is involved in direct care with very little administration. Many of the voluntary organisations would do well to take the WRVS as their example. I also congratulate Age Concern, Crossroads and the other remarkable voluntary bodies.
The Government are showing greater willingness to participate in research and in funding this very important area. I hope that we can continue to help before it is too late.
6.38 pm
Mr. Allen McKay: We in the House and people outside are now about to book holidays, if they are not already booked. We are saying that we will put our household pets in places where they will be looked after or we will get friends to look after them. A carer of people is not in that happy position. A carer cannot do that. Why should carers be in that position?
We blithely take such people for granted. The Minister took them for granted when he said that the resources were not available. He said that the resources were not available in the social services departments. There is much understanding among hon. Members about the need to help carers. We must together try to find the money to achieve our objective. We can do it. Local authorities have capital expenditure tied up. For heaven's sake, let them release that capital expenditure and let it be spent on things that it should be spent on such as caring for the carers.
6.40 pm
Mr. Robert N. Wareing: I am pleased that there is consensus about what needs to be done, but there is no consensus about the availability of cash. That is where the rub lies. There are 1¼ million people in this country who are looking after severely disabled relatives. Although they may be looking after their severely disabled relatives by choice, that is no reason for exploiting them, yet they are being exploited.
The hon. Member for Surrey, South-West (Mrs. Bottomley) said that it is all right if one signs cheques using somebody else's cheque book, but who is signing the cheque for £120 a week that goes to many owners of private nursing homes? This gives rise to the kind of headline that appeared earlier this week in the Liverpool Echo, which, together with the "World in Action" team, has done a great service by pointing out that many of the cheques for £120 a week are wasted because that money is swelling the profits of the owners of private residential nursing homes who are not providing proper food and conditions for the people in their care. I have already put down three parliamentary questions about residential homes, including Millvale House in my constituency.
I hope that the Minister for Social Security will agree to hold an independent inquiry into this matter. If the Government really care for those who are in private nursing homes, they should inquire into the cost of caring for people in those homes. They should provide more help for the real carers—relatives who provide care, not for profit, but for love.
6.42 pm
Ms. Harriet Harman: The desperate urgency of the case for carers is obvious to the carers themselves and to anyone who knows a carer. At the very least, caring for an elderly or a disabled person can mean the loss of social life, job prospects and income, but for many carers it also means emotional and physical breakdown, exhaustion and isolation.
I want to mention the circumstances of one woman to whom I talked in her own home last week. For many years Mary looked after her elderly mother until she died at the age of 84 after a long, depressive illness. Three years later, when Mary was only 48, her husband suffered a massive
1146
stroke which left him with pre-senile dementia. It was then that, in practice, Mary lost the husband whom she loved dearly.
It is 12 years since Mary's husband had his stroke, years which have seen her life devastated. She has become totally isolated. She had to give up her job to look after him—a job she desperately misses, not only for the money, but because she enjoyed her work. She has lost contact with her friends. She cannot go out to see them because she has to stay in to look after her husband. When she last invited friends to her home her husband stripped off in front of them, so she feels that she can no longer invite them to her home. Her relationships with her children and the rest of her family have also broken down. Her children find that it is less easy to travel to see her, because they have small children, and she cannot travel to see them because she has to look after her husband.
Mary always gets up before her husband to have her breakfast, because as soon as he is awake she is too busy responding to his demands to find time to eat. She finds it impossible to eat at the same table as her husband, anyway, because he stuffs his food into his mouth so forcibly that he nearly always vomits over his food. He is doubly incontinent. She finds faeces smeared everywhere in the house—up the banisters and up the walls. She feels under strain 24 hours a day. On the morning that I met her she had awoken to find that her husband had disappeared. She spent anxious hours searching for him, with the help of the police.
In those 12 years of caring for her husband, the strain and isolation have broken both her physical and her mental health, but because her husband is doubly incontinent she finds it difficult to get respite care, even in an emergency. She had to be taken into hospital for a cancer operation, but even then she could not get respite care. Mary is one of the many carers whose caring has broken her. Because of the struggle and the strain, these carers feel as though they no longer have the capacity to care, yet they have no choice but to continue.
Mary has never been assessed as to her capacity to care. She has never been offered day or night sitting services, or a home help. She says that she cannot stand it any more. She wants to get her husband into residential care, but she will have to go on looking after him because of the low level of services where she lives.
Mary's case is heartbreaking in the extreme, but it is not unusual. It is relatively typical of the pattern of caring. It is not just part of her life; it is a series of caring roles that have taken over her life. They take up the 24 hours of the day, the seven days of the week, and the 52 weeks of the year. As both she and her husband are not earning, she has financial problems. Her case is also typical of the social isolation that is caused, of the breakdown of family relationships and of mental strain. Carers are six times more likely than anybody else to suffer a mental breakdown.
Mary lives in the London borough of Merton. It is a Conservative-controlled borough that takes pride in its low level of spending on social services. That means that it takes pride in an appallingly low level of services. Although there are carers in all parts of the country, the services that are available to support them in their role differ drastically. According to the Minister, there is a network of professional carers and the only problem is coordination, but whether one gets any help at all depends not upon one's needs but upon where one lives. There is

1147
no respite care for those looking after younger, physically disabled people if one is a carer in Conservative Kent or Conservative Richmond. In neither of those counties, unfortunately, is there one of the excellent Crossroads care attendance schemes.
Mr. Rowe: That is untrue.
Ms. Harman: I stand by the fact that no respite care is provided by the county of Kent for those looking after younger, physically disabled people. Many counties under Tory control provide less than half the number of home helps that are set down in the Government's minimum guideline.
The hon. Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price) referred to the need for more home helps. Is he unaware of the fact that councils that are under Tory control are cutting back on home helps and that the increase in the home help service that the Minster praised is because Labour-controlled councils, in the teeth of Government opposition, have tried to increase their provision? The Liberal-controlled Isle of Wight is such a care less council that it provides less than one third of the Government's minimum guideline for home helps.
Mr. Alton: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Ms. Harman: It is an irony that the Government praise as responsible and exemplary those Liberal and Tory councils which leave carers to crack up behind closed doors. The Government condemn Labour councils which try to improve services in order to ease the burden on carers. The Government brand them as irresponsible and profligate. What an irony that the Government are discouraging councils which are trying to improve and increase services. The statement in the Government's amendment to our motion, that they intend to continue to improve the level of support for statutory agencies, is not true. In fact, last year council social services spending increased by only 0·5 per cent. because of Government restrictions, although the Department of the Environment acknowledges that a 2·5 per cent. increase is needed just to maintain existing services for the growing number of elderly people.
Nor is it true, as the Government say in their amendment, that they are continuing to improve the level of support to voluntary agencies. As a result of local government spending restrictions, voluntary organisations have seen their council grants cut by over a quarter. Instead, the Government have spawned a chaotic range of schemes for voluntary organisations, many of which involve services being provided by short-term Manpower Services Commission trainees on as little as 1·70 an hour. Carers deserve better than a disjointed service by an ever-changing stream of conscripts from the dole queue.
Instead of mealy-mouthed platitudes, the Government should embark upon a national strategy for ensuring comprehensive provision of services at local level. The Minister said nothing about that in his speech. He referred only to seminars. The Government should be taking the initiative to recognise the growing needs of a growing army of carers.
As well as the financial measures which my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) outlined, the Government should encourage the development of
1148
local services which ensure that there is early identification of carers and an assessment of their capacity to care. The Government should also provide sufficient residential provision to ensure that nobody has to care when that is beyond her or his capacity. Not all carers want to be voluntary carers. Some of them are conscripted into caring because there is no alternative. Carers need information and advice about help. They need the continuing backup of key workers to help them to fight their way through the maze of different agencies with which they have to deal. Obviously, we would like to see care attendant schemes in all parts of the country. The Government must encourage and co-ordinate group practice and make sure that the resources are there to back it up.
Forty seven Conservative Back Benchers have already signalled their support for this motion by signing early-day motion 299, which stands in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley). That motion is identical to the motion that we are debating. The Government amendment totally contradicts early-day motion 299, and Conservatives who signed that motion must vote for this motion and against the Government. If they do not, they will be revealing themselves as dishonest and as hypocrites, and carers in their constituencies will be saddened to know that the support they thought they had from their Members of Parliament is worthless because they were not prepared to defend the interests of those carers whom they said they represented.
6.51 pm
The Minister for Social Security (Mr. Tony Newton): The one thing on which all hon. Members are united is the importance of the subject that we have been debating for over two hours. In some ways, the time has been too short for such an important subject. In the past, the people about whom we have been talking have had inadequate recognition, perhaps from hon. Members on both sides of the House. Such people are worthy not only of the admiration that has been expressed by every hon. Member who has spoken, but of the support of the whole community for what they do.
Apart from the occasional rude remarks that have been made about the Government and the odd sour note that has crept in, I found the debate immensely encouraging. I suspect that five, or certainly 10, years ago such a debate would not have taken place, because nobody would have thought the subject warranted even two or three hours of the time of the House. That is a sign of a great and welcome increase in public and political awareness of the problems of carers.
I have no doubt that part of the trigger for today's debate was the Advocate General's opinion, issued on Tuesday of last week. However, that would not have triggered off the debate if there had not been a fundamental interest in the subject. That interest represents an important gain for our political discussion and for a solution to the problems of the disabled and those associated with them. I am happy to acknowledge that, because I can claim something that was implicit in the speech of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Health who opened the debate. While the Government can in no sense claim, nor would we seek to claim, that it is primarily our own achievement, we have contributed to that awareness by the policies and initiatives that we have taken in the past four or five years.

1149
When the first results of the DHSS social work service—now the social services inspectorate—project on informal carers were discussed at a major seminar at Friend's House in London, I was in the job now carried out by my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney). I remember making the opening speech at that conference which had been instituted to discuss the project. Those taking part included representatives from local authorities, health authorities, voluntary organisations and others. The conference sought to bring to their attention the need to think more about the problems of carers. A good deal has stemmed from that work, carried out only three or four years ago, and it is being built upon.
I know that the Opposition regard £10·5 million as a piffling sum, but we are contributing with our helping the community to care programme. That programme has its bits and pieces. Some are large, others are small, but they are all important in their way in developing further the recognition and awareness of this problem. Pilot projects are taking place in three local authority areas.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) spoke about the information and advice available to carers. The King's Fund work seeks to improve that information and advice. I know that people have occasionally rubbished such things and asked "What is information and advice?" In my experience both in this area and in a narrower way in social security, the improvement of information and advice fulfils a major need and ensures that people know where to go to get the help either in cash or in care that they need. I make no apology for those projects, because they play an important part in what we are all seeking to do.
My right hon. Friend touched on the development of joint finance and joint planning. I should like to join in the tributes that have been paid to many of the voluntary organisations. There has been a significant expansion of the amount of support given to those voluntary organisations by the Government to enable them to expand their work, to which the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) rightly paid tribute.
I have looked up the amount of grant aid paid to a number of those organisations, and it confirms my own recollection of what has taken place during the time that I have been in the Department. Broadly speaking, Crossroads and the Associations of Carers are getting three time the amount of grant aid now that they were getting just a few years ago. The Association of Carers was not receiving any grant aid when this Government took office, because at that time the association did not exist. We have not contributed to the association as much as it would like, but we have contributed significantly to the development of its important work. I hope that we shall be able to continue to do so and to develop financing methods that will assist still further its steady development and give it the greater security that it would undoubtedly like.
I should like to pay tribute to the hon. Member who made the most thoughtful speech in the debate—I hope that I am not offending any other hon. Member by saying that—my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price), who has considerable knowledge and a long involvement in these matters. It gave the debate the balance that it had previously lacked, because of some of the words uttered by the hon. Member for Oldham, West. I was struck by the point that I think my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh took from Judith Oliver of the Association of Carers about the tendency for local
1150
authorities and other service providers sometimes to assume too easily that if there is a carer there is no need for services. However, very often the opposite is true. Governments cannot change those attitudes by diktat from the centre, but they can help to change them over a period, and this Government have already contributed to that aim.
Much of the debate has focused on the argument about the invalid care allowance. I acknowledge the strength of feeling and the interest that exists on both sides of the House about that matter. We have heard quoted some huge figures of carers. Whether or not we quarrel with the size of those figures or the sums involved, the House should at least not run away with the idea that the extension of invalid care allowance to married women is a solution to the sort of problem that we are debating. At most, 70,000 of those millions of carers, about whom the hon. Member for Oldham, West spoke, would stand to gain. They would certainly not see this as a solution to their problems or as an alternative to the sort of services that have been spoken about so tellingly in the debate. For example, it must be recognised that an elderly carer would not gain at all from the extension of the invalid care allowance because, as part of her husband's pension, she already receives exactly the same amount of money that she would receive by way of invalid care allowance. If she were to receive invalid care allowance, the husband's benefit would be cut by a corresponding amount.
I ask people not to exaggerate the extent to which invalid care allowance presents a solution to this important issue, nor to exaggerate what would be achieved by what they are urging the Government to do. As the amendment says, we shall consider and report to the House on any judgment that the European Court may make in due course. Both the motion and the amendment in their different ways show the dilemma posed by many different needs. What they have in common is that they unequivocally recognise the needs of carers and the progress that has been made. However, much more needs to be done. The amendment invites the House to proceed in a considered and responsible way.
Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
The House divided: Ayes 170, Noes 272.

Division No. 167]

[7.00 pm

AYES

Abse, Leo

Callaghan, Rt Hon J.

Alton, David

Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

Anderson, Donald

Campbell-Savours, Dale

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Canavan, Dennis

Ashdown, Paddy

Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)

Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

Carter-Jones, Lewis

Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

Cartwright, John

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Barnett, Guy

Clay, Robert

Barron, Kevin

Clelland, David Gordon

Beckett, Mrs Margaret

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Bell, Stuart

Coleman, Donald

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Conlan, Bernard

Bermingham, Gerald

Cook, Frank (Stockton North)

Bidwell, Sydney

Corbett, Robin

Blair, Anthony

Corbyn, Jeremy

Boothroyd, Miss Betty

Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

Boyes, Roland

Craigen, J. M.

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Crowther, Stan

Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

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

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

Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

Deakins, Eric

Buchan, Norman

Dixon, Donald

Caborn, Richard

Dobson, Frank

1151

Dormand, Jack

Martin, Michael

Dubs, Alfred

Mason, Rt Hon Roy

Duffy, A. E. P.

Maynard, Miss Joan

Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

Meacher, Michael

Eadie, Alex

Michie, William

Eastham, Ken

Mikardo, Ian

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

Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

Ewing, Harry

Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

Faulds, Andrew

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

Forrester, John

O'Neill, Martin

Foster, Derek

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Foulkes, George

Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

Fraser, J. (Norwood)

Park, George

Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

Parry, Robert

Freud, Clement

Pavitt, Laurie

George, Bruce

Pendry, Tom

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

Pike, Peter

Godman, Dr Norman

Prescott, John

Golding, John

Radice, Giles

Gould, Bryan

Randall, Stuart

Hamilton, James (M'well N)

Raynsford, Nick

Hamilton, W. W. (Fife Central)

Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)

Hardy, Peter

Richardson, Ms Jo

Harman, Ms Harriet

Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

Robertson, George

Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

Haynes, Frank

Rogers, Allan

Heffer, Eric S.

Rooker, J. W.

Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)

Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)

Ryman, John

Home Robertson, John

Sedgemore, Brian

Howells, Geraint

Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

Hoyle, Douglas

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Hughes, Dr Mark (Durham)

Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Silkin, Rt Hon J.

Hughes, Roy (Newport East)

Skinner, Dennis

Janner, Hon Greville

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

Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)

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

John, Brynmor

Snape, Peter

Kilroy-Silk, Robert

Soley, Clive

Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

Spearing, Nigel

Lambie, David

Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

Lamond, James

Straw, Jack

Leadbitter, Ted

Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

Leighton, Ronald

Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)

Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

Tinn, James

Litherland, Robert

Torney, Tom

Livsey, Richard

Wareing, Robert

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Weetch, Ken

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Wigley, Dafydd

McCartney, Hugh

Williams, Rt Hon A.

McKay, Allen (Penistone)

Wilson, Gordon

McKelvey, William

Woodall, Alec

MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

Wrigglesworth, Ian

McTaggart, Robert

Young, David (Bolton SE)

McWilliam, John

Madden, Max

Tellers for the Ayes:

Marek, Dr John

Mr. Ray Powell and

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Mr. Mark Fisher.

NOES

Aitken, Jonathan

Biggs-Davison, Sir John

Alexander, Richard

Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Body, Sir Richard

Amery, Rt Hon Julian

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Amess, David

Bottomley, Peter

Ancram, Michael

Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

Ashby, David

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Aspinwall, Jack

Boyson, Dr Rhodes

Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Baldry, Tony

Bright, Graham

Bellingham, Henry

Brinton, Tim

Bendall, Vivian

Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

Benyon, William

Brooke, Hon Peter

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

1152

Bruinvels, Peter

Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)

Bryan, Sir Paul

Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N)

Buck, Sir Antony

Hunt, David (Wirral W)

Budgen, Nick

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Bulmer, Esmond

Irving, Charles

Butcher, John

Jackson, Robert

Butterfill, John

Jessel, Toby

Carlisle, John (Luton N)

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

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

Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

Carttiss, Michael

Kershaw, Sir Anthony

Cash, William

Key, Robert

Chalker, Mrs Lynda

King, Rt Hon Tom

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Latham, Michael

Chapman, Sydney

Lawrence, Ivan

Chope, Christopher

Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

Churchill, W. S.

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Lester, Jim

Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)

Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

Lightbown, David

Clegg, Sir Walter

Lloyd, Ian (Havant)

Colvin, Michael

Lord, Michael

Cope, John

Luce, Rt Hon Richard

Cormack, Patrick

Lyell, Nicholas

Couchman, James

McCrindle, Robert

Cranborne, Viscount

McCurley, Mrs Anna

Critchley, Julian

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Crouch, David

MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

Dickens, Geoffrey

MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

Dorrell, Stephen

Maclean, David John

Dover, Den

McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

du Cann, Rt Hon Sir Edward

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

Dunn, Robert

Major, John

Eggar, Tim

Malins, Humfrey

Emery, Sir Peter

Malone, Gerald

Evennett, David

Maples, John

Eyre, Sir Reginald

Marland, Paul

Farr, Sir John

Marlow, Antony

Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Fletcher, Alexander

Mates, Michael

Fookes, Miss Janet

Mather, Carol

Forman, Nigel

Maude, Hon Francis

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Forth, Eric

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Franks, Cecil

Mayhew, Sir Patrick

Freeman, Roger

Mellor, David

Gardiner, George (Reigate)

Merchant, Piers

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

Miller, Hal (B'grove)

Glyn, Dr Alan

Mills, Iain (Meriden)

Goodhart, Sir Philip

Miscampbell, Norman

Goodlad, Alastair

Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

Gorst, John

Monro, Sir Hector

Gow, Ian

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Grant, Sir Anthony

Morris, M. (N'hampton S)

Griffiths, Sir Eldon

Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

Ground, Patrick

Moynihan, Hon C.

Grylls, Michael

Mudd, David

Gummer, Rt Hon John S

Murphy, Christopher

Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

Neale, Gerrard

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Needham, Richard

Hampson, Dr Keith

Neubert, Michael

Hargreaves, Kenneth

Newton, Tony

Harris, David

Nicholls, Patrick

Harvey, Robert

Norris, Steven

Haselhurst, Alan

Onslow, Cranley

Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

Oppenheim, Phillip

Hayes, J.

Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

Hayhoe, Rt Hon Barney

Osborn, Sir John

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Ottaway, Richard

Henderson, Barry

Page, Sir John (Harrow W)

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Page, Richard (Herts SW)

Hind, Kenneth

Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

Hirst, Michael

Patten, J. (Oxf W & Abgdn)

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

Pawsey, James

Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

Pollock, Alexander

Hordern, Sir Peter

Portillo, Michael

Howard, Michael

Powell, William (Corby)

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

Powley, John

Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

1153

Price, Sir David

Stradling Thomas, Sir John

Proctor, K. Harvey

Sumberg, David

Pym, Rt Hon Francis

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Raffan, Keith

Taylor, John (Solihull)

Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

Rathbone, Tim

Temple-Morris, Peter

Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)

Terlezki, Stefan

Rhodes James, Robert

Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)

Ridsdale, Sir Julian

Thornton, Malcolm

Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

Thurnham, Peter

Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

Roe, Mrs Marion

Trippier, David

Rost, Peter

Twinn, Dr Ian

Rowe, Andrew

van Straubenzee, Sir W.

Rumbold, Mrs Angela

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Ryder, Richard

Waddington, David

Sackville, Hon Thomas

Wakeham, Rt Hon John

Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

Waldegrave, Hon William

St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.

Walden, George

Sayeed, Jonathan

Waller, Gary

Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

Walters, Dennis

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Ward, John

Shelton, William (Streatham)

Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Warren, Kenneth

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Watts, John

Shersby, Michael

Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)

Soames, Hon Nicholas

Wheeler, John

Speed, Keith

Whitfield, John

Speller, Tony

Whitney, Raymond

Spencer, Derek

Wilkinson, John

Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)

Winterton, Mrs Ann

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Wolfson, Mark

Squire, Robin

Wood, Timothy

Stanbrook, Ivor

Woodcock, Michael

Stanley, Rt Hon John

Yeo, Tim

Stern, Michael

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Tellers for the Noes:

Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

Mr. Tony Durant and

Stokes, John

Mr. Peter Lloyd.

Question accordingly negatived.
Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 33 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
Mr. Speaker forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House, noting that there are a substantial number of people from the age of seven to 70 years caring for disabled and elderly relatives at home, often for many years, pays the warmest possible tribute to these carers; and further noting the research which shows that carers themselves often suffer from mental and physical illness, social isolation and disadvantage, recognises the action already taken by the Government to improve their position, especially in view of the undoubted savings to public funds which flow from their commitment; and in particular welcomes the Government's intentions, in line with its stated policies on care in the community and the availability of resources, that: (a) adequate respite care, both at home and in short-stay facilities, be assured by continuing improvement in the level of support given to statutory and voluntary agencies, (b) a flexible system of appropriate support such as home helps and home nursing be available at times when the carer needs them and (c) any judgement which may be made by the European Court relating to the invalid care allowance introduced by the Labour Government in 1976, be carefully considered by the Government and made the subject of a report to the House.

County of South Glamorgan (Taff Crossing) Bill (By Order)
Order for Second Reading read.
7.13 pm
Mr. James Callaghan: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I seek the indulgence of the House to make my maiden speech on a private Bill.
The purpose of the Bill, which is promoted by the county council of the county of South Glamorgan, is to enable the county council to construct a road crossing of the tidal estuary of the river Taff. The interests of those hon. Members who represent Cardiff are touched by the Bill, as is the interest of the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Sir R. Gower). As the river crossing that is the subject of the Bill is in my constituency, they have kindly allowed me to sponsor the Bill, although they will put their own gloss on it and perhaps add their own reservations. However, I think that there is no basic difference between us in our endeavour to secure a Second Reading.
I should like to begin by describing the area that the Bill touches. We are discussing not an area of sylvan beauty or an untouched coastline that we are seeking to preserve for the national heritage, but one of the most rundown industrial areas in south Wales, an area which was created when the coal traffic was at its height but which, with the decline of the coal traffic, has itself declined and become an industrial backwater where live some of my constituents, several thousand of them, who are in an area of deprivation. We are concerned in this matter to improve the environment in which they live. In so doing we have run up against problems that I will describe and try to treat fairly because I hope, if I can, to satisfy the objections of those who object.
I want those who are thinking of objecting to recognise that this area comprises very old, poor housing, a rundown industrial backwater with a road transport depot at one side and an oil storage depot at the other; the dry docks and the wet docks are there, and the mud flats that lead to them have to be constantly dredged; and unemployment in the area is the highest in the city of Cardiff. I should not like any Member to be under the impression that the vandals of Glamorgan county council are attempting to spoil some part of our national heritage. That would be far from the truth.
The area is being improved, and the Bill is part of the effort to improve it, although the proposal that the House is being asked to approve is the building of a crossing from Cardiff to Penarth across the Taff estuary. Here the difference arises. The county council is proposing a barrage. Those who oppose it for good reasons would prefer a bridge. There may not seem to be much between the two, but I will explain why the county council would prefer to build a barrage.
I have already said that this is an area with the fewest amenities in the city of Cardiff. It is an area outside the entrance to the docks that has been a great handicap to us in the past. It comprises mud flats that have to be dredged constantly. The rise and fall of the river Severn, as I think is well known, at this point are the highest and lowest in the world, with the exception of the Bay of Fundy in Nova Scotia. Having said that, I dare say that I will get a number

1155
of letters telling me of other places that have higher rises or lower falls. In this case, it is 40 ft. When the tide goes out, it leaves a tremendous area of mud flats, and the Cardiff docks entrance has to be kept open constantly.
In its proposal for completing the road system from one side to the other, the council had what it thought was the excellent idea of improving the amenities of those who live in the area by building a barrage that would hold the water level steady and would disguise the ugliness, which is how some people think of the mud flats. There are, I know, people in Essex who believe that the mud flats there are the most beautiful things in the world. I can only say that my constituents, alas, do not have that taste. They wanted to see the mud flats disguised, and they were very happy with the county council's proposal.
The council wants to take a small area of the mud flats closest to the houses where my constituents live. This is an area on which feed a great many important birds. They go there to feed every winter. I am told that they feed on invertebrates. If they choose, they can also have an excellent diet of rusty bicycles, old bedsteads and sundry other rubbish. Not surprisingly, some of my constituents—though not all—are anxious that this should be removed. A barrage would be one way of removing it.
A public exhibition was put on in the area concerned which 700 people visited. Many were enthusiastic. A large number were in favour and there were some objectors, but I am happy to say that this is the reverse of the normal type of Bill where the objections usually come from the residents. In this case, the residents are in favour and those who live outside—if I were in an unkind mood, I would say those who live in much better areas—are opposed to the Bill. We must take the matter seriously, and later I shall suggest what I think should be done. We must find a balance.
We fell foul of the sites of special scientific interest and conservation groups generally, including the Nature Conservancy Council, all of whom have registered objections. I do not wish to criticise those groups which do much to preserve our heritage. If I may speak of my bona fides, I have been a member of the International Council for Bird Preservation for many years. Yesterday I checked with my bank that my subscription was fully paid, otherwise I might have received a request to pay it.
The county council wishes to enclose a small area of a much bigger area which stretches roughly from the Severn bridge—an area we call the English Stone—through the Welsh Grounds, lying in the middle of the Severn estuary, to the English and Welsh Stone at the bottom. It is a vast area of 25,000 acres or more. The county council proposes to enclose less than 1 per cent. of the total area in order to improve my constituents' amenities. For that reason, I am asking the House to allow the Bill to go to a Committee so that it can examine what can be done to meet the needs of those groups.
A large number of birds roost and feed there, partly, no doubt, because of the nature of the mud flats. Naturally, the mud flats are closest to the city where my constituents live. They are the last to be flooded, and the tide leaves them first. There are also many scavenging gulls on the refuse of the city which pours out. The area has been an eyesore for as long as I have represented this part of Cardiff. It is unpleasant for the residents, and offputting for industry and commerce.
1156
The county council, knowing that there would be claims that its proposals would have an impact on bird life, commissioned a study on the effects. Clearly there will be a loss of feeding ground, and no one can disagree with that. The study, conducted at University College, Cardiff, counted a peak of 1,500 redshanks feeding at low tide, 8,000 dunlin, 450 shelduck and others.
In my innocence, I assume that if the birds are shut out of this tiny area, they will find somewhere else on the huge expanse between the English Stone and the Welsh Stone. However, I am told that, because the area is the last to be flooded, it is where the birds much prefer to be, and that we would perhaps rob them of a little of their feeding ground. The county council tried to handle that, and proposed to the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds that it would construct an artificial mud bank of equal size surrounded by ditches so that it would be there in perpetuity, adjoining the area to be shut off. In that way the birds may continue to feed on an area of equivalent size. I am not making fun of the matter, but that was the type of problem that the county council set out to meet.
I notice that some hon. Members who signed the objection are present. I believe that the RSPB has been unreasonable. It refused to meet the county council to discuss the matter fully, and to see whether the council's idea of a substitute mud bank would meet the objections. The RSPB said, "We are losing so much land for all sorts of good purposes that as a matter of principle we refuse to allow any more to go. Therefore, we must stand on our rights and object to the Bill." If that happens, the Bill will not receive a Second Reading, and that would be entirely wrong. Obviously, we must look after the interests of and seek to conserve our natural heritage, but if the choice is between 1,500 redshanks and 5,000 constituents who live in the worst possible conditions in south Cardiff, we must achieve a balance, and I know where that balance should be struck.
If the RSPB will meet the county council and discuss the matter, every effort will be made before anything is done to construct some alternative that would not destroy even one acre of the birds' natural feeding grounds.
Mr. Alex Carlile: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the RSPB—I am so advised by the Wales officer of the RSPB—has met the county council, placed all its objections before the council and remains of the view that the objections are not met by the proposals in the Bill?
Mr. Callaghan: That is why the objection is continuing.
Mr. Carlile: The county council and the RSPB met.
Mr. Callaghan: Whether they met or not—
Mr. Carlile: The right hon. Gentleman said that they had not met.
Mr. Callaghan: I am not sure whether they met. There was certainly correspondence between them if that counts as a meeting. Some people from the RSPB visited me, and none of them lives in the area about which we are talking. They live in much more salubrious areas. I am anxious that my people should have as good a life as those who came to see me, and that that should not be denied them. That is why I ask the House to give the Bill a Second Reading.
The hon. and learned Gentleman may be right, but no one could have made greater efforts than the county

1157
council. The society told me that it was standing on principle and that there could be no compromise because enough has been lost. If a society does that, obviously there can be no agreement, whether or not it met the county council. The House must judge between the two groups and see where it thinks the balance of advantage lies.
I promised to put one further matter to the House. As I explained, the channel is constantly subject to dredging. British Dredging Aggregates, a company in my constituency, operates from a wharf on the river Taff which will be cut off from the sea if the barrage is built. It is the company's most profitable wharf. The company asked me to tell the House that
"it is happy to support the Scheme at this stage but that must be subject to the essential requirement that adequate and proper compensation is made to BDA for the loss of a vital part of its undertaking. Discussions are currently proceeding with the Local Authority and it is hoped that adequate compensation will be agreed."
The House need not deny the Bill a Second Reading on those grounds. Although the company will be subject to some difficulty, it believes that it can reach an agreement with the county council.
I shall be glad to answer any questions. If the RSPB has met the county council, I gladly withdraw what I said. Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman will explain to me whether the society is willing to depart from its attitude that there can be no compromise on the matter.
Mr. Carlile: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that a meeting took place between officers of the RSPB, including Mr. Lovegrove, the Wales officer who runs the RSPB in Wales, and county council officials, including the chief environmental officer and the chief solicitor. The RSPB is perfectly prepared to listen to any proposal which the county council puts to it.
The right hon. Gentleman has been fair and most helpful, but could he help me with other important factors? What have been the consultation costs of the barrage scheme? What is the estimated cost of the barrage scheme? For the aid of a comparison, what would be the cost of a bridge?
Mr. Callaghan: I accept that the officers of the RSPB met council officials. I do not think the hon. and learned Gentleman has disposed of my question. If the RSPB is not willing to compromise, what is the consequence of it listening to the county council?
The cost of a high-level bridge—it is all part of a larger scheme and should be put in that context—would be £38 million. The cost of a low-level bridge on piers would be £36 million. The cost of the barrage would be £40,600,000. The barrage would cost £2 million more than a high-level bridge and £4 million more than a low-level bridge. I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will not tell my constituents of south Cardiff, who have lived in these conditions for 40 years or more, that £4 million should stand between them and the barrage scheme. If that is the basis of the hon. and learned Gentleman's objections, I must tell him that that is not the sort of equation that my constituents would make. They would be astonished if the hon. and learned Gentleman, as a member of the Liberal party, were to make such an equation.
Mr. Peter Hardy: My right hon. Friend is making a powerful case on behalf of his constituents.
1158
I wish to remind the House that I am a member of the RSPB council, although I have not been involved in this matter. I do not live in one of the salubrious areas referred to by my right hon. Friend; I live in south Yorkshire. if my right hon. Friend secures the Second Reading—I think he is confident of doing so—I hope he can assure us that that will not provide the county council with any reason to believe that it does not need to enter into further discussions with the RSPB. Such discussions are necessary, not least because the RSPB has assured me that it does not, in principle, object to the crossing.
Mr. Callaghan: My hon. Friend is correct. The RSPB has stated consistently that it does not object to the crossing, but does object to the barrage. The RSPB has made it absolutely clear that it favours the building of a bridge.
I can give my hon. Friend an assurance, after many years of contact with the councillors of the county council, that it is their determination and intention—I hope that no one will take exception if I say it is a Labour county council, as I do not wish to put off anyone who is ready to support the Bill—to improve the amenities of the area. Whatever the politics, officials who are not politically minded have shown every desire to meet the RSPB with the intention of achieving a compromise and to find some way of ensuring that the scheme goes through.
I received a letter from the council which informed me that it does not intend to proceed with the construction of the barrage until replacement mud flats have been established. I hope that that assures my hon. Friend and the RSPB. I support the work of the RSPB and I hope that its good work will continue.
It would be a great disservice to people who are deprived and who are living in an area of high unemployment and whose living conditions are not satisfactory if they could not have the improvement in their amenities which this proposed construction would effect.
7.34 pm
Mr. Gwilym Jones: It is important to stress that there is no lack of enthusiasm for the peripheral distributor road around south Cardiff and for the Taff crossing which is the subject of the Bill. I regard these developments as positive features—indeed, they are one of many features which we can gloriously hold up which seek to attract people to relocate in Cardiff. There have been some local reservations about the line of the road, and, as the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan) referred to, the effect on British Dredging Aggregates Limited. Those are not points which I need to discuss in detail as they have been dealt with by the right hon. Gentleman. We are debating the nature of the crossing and whether it should be a barrage. The barrage is the centre of no small controversy both in and outside Cardiff. It is important to emphasise that, from all the representations I have received, there is no objection in principle to this new crossing of the Taff.
When the Bill was read the First time I found it necessary to shout "object" in company with my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr. Carlisle) and to add my signature to the blocking motion which appears on the Order Paper. I knew that there were significant local worries about the environmental implications of the Bill. I did not feel it was right that it should receive a formal

1159
First Reading and receive a relatively brief consideration by the Unopposed Bills Committee. I had received representations and petitions from constituents who sought my help as well as from local and national groups worried about the environment. I felt those reservations should be considered.
On the day following the First Reading, no fewer than six petitions were received against the Bill. One petition came from ARC (Western) Limited and ARC-Powell Duffryn Limited. The others were from the Cardiff Naturalists' Society, the Severn-Estuary Conservation Group, the Glamorgan Trust for Nature Conservation, the RSPB and British Dredging Aggregates Ltd. That meant that, unless the petitions were withdrawn, the Bill would automatically go to the Opposed Bills Committee.
The week following the First Reading I received an assurance from South Glamorgan county council that it would enter into negotiations with the petitioners in an attempt to reach agreement with them to withdraw their petitions. I withdrew my objection to facilitate and encourage those negotiations. I did not want any excuses for the negotiations not to be pursued full-heartedly, nor did I want it to be claimed that the objections to the Bill were making the negotiations pointless.
I regret that the political representatives of South Glamorgan county council reacted with great arrogance when the Bill was read the First time. They said that all the environmental arguments had already been fully considered by the council and dealt with. Accordingly they said that this House should not bother to hear those arguments for itself. I am sure all right hon. and hon. Members would utterly reject that arrogant and flawed contention. What citizen is too unimportant that his point of view should not be heard by this House? The councils' audacious pretension has been further flawed.
South Glamorgan county council had sought to evaluate the environmental implications and effects. Dr. Peter Ferns of University College, Cardiff, was commissioned to advise the council on these aspects. In turn the South Glamorgan county council offered to carry out the compensatory works recommended by Dr. Ferns—a recognition of the environmental effects claimed by the objectors. However, Dr. Ferns has stated that South Glamorgan county council has not subsequently carried out any work to determine if his proposals are feasible.
The objectors claim that in negotiations with South Glamorgan county council, before and after the First Reading of the Bill, the representatives of the council have, at best, received submissions with a polite "thank you, but no thank you".
The impression has been conveyed that the council is determined to have the barrage, come what may. It is, therefore, only fair to mention that I have had reports from South Glamorgan county council, from its side of the table, to the effect that perhaps not all of the objectors have been fully prepared to work towards an agreed solution to the problem. But inevitably such recriminations will flow from negotiations which both sides admit have failed.
The county council's case for the barrage can easily be seen. It would provide a constant ponding of the water back up the river Taff to where the river runs adjacent to the city centre. It would be a significant cosmetic improvement in itself, and it would also be an improvement for those who abhor mud or for those other
1160
all too common features of urban vandalism, the rivers and their banks. We could all give endless lists of those things that are dumped into or alongside rivers by unthinking people.
It is envisaged that a wide range of water sports, most obviously rowing and other small boat racing, could be developed on the ponded water to the clear advantage of those who want to participate or to be spectators. However, cosmetic improvements are certainly not to everyone's liking. Beauty is very definitely in the eye of the beholder. All conservation groups and like-minded individuals emphatically say that the mud flats are very attractive to the wading and other birds which populate them, to those who enjoy and take pleasure in watching them, and to those who make serious studies of them. That enjoyment, and those studies are possible, because the Taff-Ely estuary has the highest density of wading birds in the whole Severn estuary, and as high a density as any other site in Great Britain. Little wonder that the Taff-Ely estuary was designated as a site of special scientific interest in 1981. That is a factor of no slight consequence.
As the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth said, the proposed barrage would only compromise an area of less than 1 per cent. of the whole Severn estuary SSSI or less than 10 per cent. of the Taff-Ely SSSI. But it must be remembered that it is the most up river part of the SSSI, and the part that is available for feeding first and last with each tidal cycle.
I have numerous statistics for the bird population, but I shall cite just one example, that of the redshank, which has a peak count of 1,500. I am advised that the redshank's presence is significant, as there has been a national decline in redshank numbers. But at least in the Taff-Ely site their population has remained relatively stable. The compensatory works originally proposed by Dr. Ferns are only exactly that. Their feasibility is not yet proven, and the barrage would inevitably eliminate a critical part of the bird feeding area, leading to a substantial reduction in the bird population. That is no small price to pay for what others have chosen to describe as a cosmetic only improvement to the river Taff.
I said that there was no objection in principle to the crossing, and I should add that the advantages of industrial regeneration are recognised by all of us, and, not least, by the conservation groups. It has been pointed out to me, however, that if there was a barrage at the mouth of the river Taff there would be a paradox, because it would then be more difficult to attract new industry further up the Taff vale. Moreover, it is confidently predicted that the standards of discharge into the river Taff would have to be raised by the Welsh water authority. New industries might wish to take advantage of the opportunity to discharge into the river Taff, and so the standards would have to be raised if the Welsh water authority was to avoid an unacceptably high effluent level in the static or much slower flowing waters behind the barrage.
Some of my constituents, along with the Cardiff Naturalists Society, the Glamorgan Trust for Nature Conservation and the RSPB, have asked me to vote against giving the Bill a Second Reading and to speak, and to urge others to do so as well.
However, Second Reading is neither the place nor the time to do anything like that. That would not properly answer all the questions that need to be answered. What is worse, it would jeopardise the crossing across the Taff which we all want to see. I want the Bill to obtain its

1161
Second Reading and to go on to the Opposed Bills Committee. That Committee will comprise four hon. Members who are impartial and who have no axe to grind. Despite any past recriminations about meetings or negotiations that have taken place between the objectors and the council, I am confident that both sides will have a fair crack of the whip in Committee. Accordingly, I am prepared to give the Bill a Second Reading, despite the fact that I have some quite considerable reservations about it. I hope that it will be given a Second Reading, and I urge all other hon. Members to vote in favour of that.
7.45 pm
Mr. Alex Carlile: I congratulate the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones) on his excellent speech. He set out succinctly many of the objections that I might wish to raise. I share his judgment about the Bill at this stage. Although I have distinct reservations about the environmental impact of the proposed barrage, as well as one other reservation to which I shall refer, I believe that the overall scheme proposed by South Glamorgan county council—the scheme for regeneration of the docklands—is commendable. I should like to see it come to fruition.
I shall concentrate on whether there is a need for a barrage or whether the crossing could be adequately provided by a bridge. The right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan) may have given the impression that the local authority is unanimous about the proposal. There is certainly not unanimity among the elected members of the county council. I have taken the trouble to make inquiries within the county council, and I know that some members are very concerned about the cost. I believe that the council will have to establish, to the Committee's satisfaction, that the cost of its proposals has been properly investigated. At this stage, I cannot counter the broad figures given by the right hon. Gentleman for the respective cost of a barrage, bridge, or low-level bridge—
Mr. Ray Powell: Will the hon. and learned Gentlemen give way?
Mr. Carlile: Before I give way, perhaps I should say that some county councillors and others in the area believe that the construction of a barrage as opposed to a low-level bridge would cost substantially more. Information on the relative costs has not been made available, as it might have been. I understand that the county council has already spent about £250,000 on research reports and that the estimated cost of building the barrage, which the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth rightly gave as being just over £40 million, is very much not a fixed estimate. Although the cost of building bridges can sometimes escalate out of all belief, the building of bridges tends to be rather more predictable because the engineering technology is much better known. It is possible, however, that the cost of building a barrage will escalate out of all recognition and reality.
Mr. Ray Powell: I am grateful for the opportunity to ensure that the House is clear on this matter. Only two hours ago, I was given to understand that all the councillors on South Glamorgan county council are agreed on the Bill. Indeed, all the political factions on the county council have agreed to support the measure. Will the hon.
1162
and learned Gentleman explain from where he gets his information? I am sure that he does not wish to mislead the House.
Mr. Carlile: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to do so. I have been informed by the leader of the alliance group on the county council that it supports the principle of the scheme and does not oppose the erection of a crossing, but that it opposes the barrage because of the apparently escalating costs of that method of crossing. I hope that that answers the hon. Gentleman's question.
I move from cost—I have tried to put down a marker for the Committee that the issue of cost must be addressed by proper evidence—to the environmental impact. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, which has its Wales headquarters in my constituency, feels strongly about the matter, but it is wrong to suggest that it is not prepared to attend meetings or to consider the views of the county council. I assure the House that, on 13 February at 3 pm, senior staff of the county council met senior staff of the RSPB in Wales, including the Wales officer, Mr. Roger Lovegrove. On that occasion, as the right hon. Gentleman suggested, the county council offered to the RSPB what has been described as the compensatory scheme, which involved the construction of artificial mudflats.
Mr. James Callaghan: The mud will not be artificial.
Mr. Carlile: I am reminded that the mud will not be artificial, but the construction will have to be contrived.
So that it is clear that the RSPB was listening to what it was told, I inform the House that the county council suggested that the construction of the proposed alternative site would cost a considerable amount of money, and it is my understanding that a figure of about £1 million was mentioned. The RSPB was asked to consider the matter and undertook to consider it during the following weeks.
The RSPB considered the matter, but rejected the proposed compromise. I assure the House that the RSPB is a responsible body which does not have a record of opposing all developments involving river crossings on environmental grounds. It tries to take a balanced view between the impact of any proposed scheme, which may be extremely beneficial, upon the local population, and the deleterious environmental impact which may arise. As an example of that balanced view, there is a proposal that the stretch of the lengthy Montgomery canal, leading from part of the constituency of the Leader of the House into my constituency, should be reopened. That would require a private Bill. The RSPB, having considered the evidence, believes that the proposals made for the reopening of the canal, which will involve considerable construction work, are acceptable, subject to environmental safeguards which, in principle at least, have been broadly agreed. It is not a body which simply opposes every such development on environmental grounds. It makes a judgment and, in this case, it made a judgment that the impact of a barrage would be more damaging than is justified.
The right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth appeared to be a little less knowledgeable than he should be about sites of special scientific interest. We are not simply talking about an unsightly mudflat of relatively minor importance, but about a mudflat which is pail of a complex of wetlands which has achieved international

1163
recognition. It qualifies for protection under the international convention on the conservation of wetlands because it is internationally important. It is also regarded as important under the European Community directive on bird conservation. Indeed, the entire Severn estuary is a proposed special protection area under the EC directive on conservation of wild birds. It is nationally important as a site of special scientific interest because of its important wintering population of shelduck and wading birds, especially dunlin and redshank.
The Taff estuary, although only a small part of the Severn estuary complex, supports 9 per cent. of the birds of the complex and is the third most important subsection of the Severn after Bridgewater bay and the Welsh Grounds. The Taff supports 10 per cent. of the Severn's dunlin population and 26 per cent. of the redshank population. Peak counts of 8,000 dunlin have been recorded. Dunlin and redshank are declining in numbers elsewhere on the west coast.
Mr. James Callaghan: The hon. and learned Gentleman rebuked me for not being as well informed as I should be. If an alternative site is provided for the birds—it is a relatively small matter—why should that reduce the number of birds that roost and feed there? The new site that is being offered, and which the RSPB has not yet accepted, is within a bird's flying distance—a few hundred yards—of the site that would be submerged. I cannot understand the objection in principle by the RSPB.
I am assured that the county council, including the SDP-Liberal alliance, agreed unanimously when the scheme was introduced. Councillors may have had reservations since then on the ground of rising cost, but when the vote was taken, everyone said yes.
Mr. Carlile: The premise upon which the right hon. Gentleman based his first question is false. The provision of an alternative site would not necessarily achieve the purpose of that site.
Mr. Callaghan: Why not?
Mr. Carlile: Because birds may not go to the new site.
Mr. Callaghan: They fly hundreds of miles to get to the present site.
Mr. Carlile: The right hon. Gentleman's simplistic premise flies in the face of the evidence in the report of Dr. P. N. Ferns to the county council, and the considered opinion of the RSPB, which has some expertise in these matters.
The proposed barrage would result in the permanent inundation of at least 8 per cent. of the mudflats on the estuary. Although in quantitative terms it is a relatively small area, it is nevertheless of disproportionate and special importance for feeding birds because of its position at the top of the estuary. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the assertion that the area is important because it is at the top of the estuary. The mud on that flattened area is the last to be covered by the rising tide and the first to be uncovered by the falling tide. As a result, waders concentrate in the area immediately before and immediately after high tide at the time of year when they need to feed for the maximum time. In the coldest conditions they need to feed for longer to acquire fuel in order to survive.
1164
In the mild winter of 1983–84—I cite this example so that the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth and the House can see that the propositions are based on evidence and not just on surmise—66 per cent. of the redshank population in the Taff and 49 per cent. of the dunlin population used the uppermost mudflats for feeding for a significant part of the tidal cycle. In the more severe winter of the following year, 1984–85, 100 per cent. of all species, except curlew, used the area for a significant time. The loss of these mudflats would have serious consequences for birds, especially dunlin and redshank.
I recognise, as does the hon. Member for Cardiff, North, that in the end one must choose between a barrage, which may result in a pretty looking lake with questionable economic benefits, and a perfectly acceptable form of crossing, a bridge, which would not have a considerable impact on the environment and bird life, for, from the point of view of the bird life, it is not good enough to provide another site on the seaward side of the barrage. Expert opinion is that interruption of the natural tidal flow in the estuary because of the barrage could seriously alter the mudflats on the seaward side of the proposed barrage.
As the hon. Member for Cardiff, North said, the reason for a barrage as opposed to another form of crossing is based not on economic or environmental grounds but on cosmetic grounds. A decision must be made whether such an expensive cosmetic recommendation should be adopted, at considerable cost to our important wild life.
The right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth knows that the bird life of Wales is one of Wales's greatest possessions. It attracts many people to Wales, not only to those scenic parts in which my constituency is situated, but to other areas where the birds are. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that people go there to see the birds, even if the birds are on mudflats in a rather unattractive area near a city.
Mr. Callaghan: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
Mr. Carlile: I assume that the right hon. Gentleman wishes to make a serious point.
Mr. Callaghan: I promise the hon. and learned Gentleman that there is no tourist industry in Butetown, and I fear that there is never likely to be one.
Mr. Carlile: I think that the right hon. Gentleman was not present when I reminded the House that this area is part of an internationally recognised conservation area under the Ramsar convention on wetlands of international importance and that it is proposed to be included as a special protection area under the European Community directive. The serious matters which I have raised—they do not deserve the frivolity which has come, surprisingly, from the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth—should be given full, fair and impartial consideration by the Opposed Bills Committee.
8.5 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Wyn Roberts): It may be helpful if, at this point, I intervene to give a brief indication of the Government's view on the Bill. The Government have considered the content of the Bill and have no objection in principle to the powers sought by the council, although there are minor points of detail that need to be discussed with the promoters. Traditionally, the Government stand

1165
neutral in relation to private Bills, and I do not propose to depart from that practice on this occasion. However, it is clear from the contributions made to the debate so far that the County of South Glamorgan (Taff Crossing) Bill raises important issues which require careful and detailed consideration.
The right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan) explained the importance of the proposals in the Bill in the context of the county council's plans for the economic regeneration of its area. A crossing of the Taff is clearly seen by the county council as a vital component in the peripheral distributor road scheme designed to improve links with the motorway system and, particularly, to help to bring new life to the old dockland areas of the city whose regeneration is currently being tackled with considerable imagination.
The proposal is that this crossing should be achieved by means of a barrage so as to create a permanent lagoon point to the environmental improvements this would bring about and to the social and recreational benefits which would flow from it. These are all points which cannot be dismissed lightly.
On the other hand, clearly there is a great deal of concern amongst conservationists about the impact on bird life of the proposals to construct an embanked bridge or barrage. The site of the proposed developments affects an area of considerable nature conservation interest—the Taff-Ely estuary—which has been notified by the Nature Conservancy Council as a site of special scientific interest. The site is of regional and national importance for its population of over-wintering wildfowl and wading birds. The NCC includes also the Taff-Ely estuary within the boundary of a wider Severn estuary site which it is considering proposing for designation as a wetland of international importance under the Ramsar convention and as a special protection area for birds under the European Community birds directive, which the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) described.
The NCC takes the view that the construction of a barrage or embanked bridge would entail the loss of an important part of the Taff/Ely site of special scientific interest and has formally advised the Department of the Environment that it objects to the proposals for the Taff crossing contained in the Bill, although it would not object to a crossing which did not involve the loss of feeding grounds. The NCC's report will be placed before the House in the normal way. Undoubtedly, the conservation implications of the proposals demand careful consideration, but they must be weighed against the undoubted benefits which would accrue from the construction of a barrage or bridge, which have been described.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones), the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery and, I am sure, the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth that the arguments would best be decided in Committee when the detailed evidence on either side can be presented, examined and evaluated. I therefore recommend to the House that the Bill be given a Second Reading and allowed to proceed in the usual way to Committee where the provisions can be considered in detail.
8.10 pm
Mr. Roy Hughes: It is unusual for a Newport Member to intervene in what is essentially a Cardiff matter, and I do so with some trepidation. Strictly
1166
speaking, this is not exclusively a Cardiff matter, because the Bill is sponsored by South Glamorgan county council. However, those of us who recall the reorganisation of local government in the early 1970s realise that, essentially, south Glamorgan is really greater Cardiff.
Cardiff is the capital city of Wales, and all Welshmen are proud of it. In the past decade, it has suffered severe blows to its industrial and commercial base. That was symbolised by the closure of the great East Moors steelworks, when thousands lost their jobs. Other enterprises were equally badly affected.
The county council, in its wisdom, has realised that good communications are the key to new developments and to attracting new jobs to the area. New road schemes have formed a large part of the county council's regeneration scheme. There is a need for better linkage with the M4 via the Severn bridge to south-east England and, likewise, better access via the M50 and the M5 to the midlands and north England. The major element in this strategy is a southern link road around Cardiff. The southern part of Cardiff would particularly benefit, including the docks which in recent years have suffered because of the loss of their traditional trade. Other developments running parallel to the new road scheme consist of residential, commercial, high-tech, leisure and public development. Altogether it seems to be a most enterprising scheme.
The route of the new road has been considered for many years, and the line chosen was considered and then approved after public inquiries. The whole scheme is to undertake industrial and commercial regeneration but, significantly, one of its principal aims is to improve the environment. The county council has granted planning permission for a barrage option and an embankment/bridge where the road crosses the estuary.
It is felt that these developments could considerably improve the appearance of the lower reaches of the river Taff and provide recreational and leisure opportunities for the Cardiff people. This is not just a cosmetic exercise, as was suggested by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile). The construction of a barrage would ensure that the unattractive river bed and lower part of the river, which are exposed at low tide, are covered by water at all tidal levels. Those objectives and the developments they encompass are commendable. They make sense from an economic and investment standpoint and in environmental and recreational terms.
A snag in the scheme which has already been mentioned several times is that some disturbance will be caused to the conservation interests of the Taff estuary and the site of special scientific interest. As a result, there have been protests. For example, I received from the Gwent Ornithological Society through its chairman, Mr. Peter Martin, a letter dated 14 March, in which he said that the Taff estuary was special because it supported 9 per cent. of the birds—mainly waders—using the Severn estuary. Those birds feed on the mud flats which would be enclosed by the proposed development.
Other conservationist bodies have been active and have made their views known. I suppose that it is a sign of the times, and praiseworthy, that such strong protests should be made in the interests of conservation. Nevertheless, we must all recognise that a reasonable and fair balance must be found between the interests of the economy and the environment and the interests of conservation.

1167
The county council believes that its proposed development tends to outweigh the more specialised conservation and ecological considerations. On balance, I tend—reluctantly, in some ways—to support the county council's view. We are, after all, living in a time of mass unemployment, and Wales has particularly suffered. Cardiff, like many other parts of the country, badly needs new jobs. This development will help to provide them. Likewise, with the growth of technology, more leisure time will be made available. A recreational scheme of the type proposed by South Glamorgan county council will help to fill a need.
As I understand it, the county council is prepared to sit down with the Nature Conservancy Council, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and other interested groups so that compensatory measures can be discussed. For example, a small nature reserve has been suggested because new habitats may be created behind the barrage. Every encouragement should be given to this possibility. New mud flats and roosting sites will be created.
The number of disturbances could be controlled. The county council's suggestions leave me with the impression that the conservationist bodies are knocking at an open door. The South Glamorgan county council is prepared to co-operate with the bodies which have the necessary expertise. The council has had a good conservation record since its inauguration in the early 1970s. This Bill is, therefore, worth supporting. It should be given a Second Reading, for, with good will, the objections can be ironed out.
8.19 pm
Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: I object to the Bill not because I do not want a crossing of the estuary of the river Taff, but because the barrier that has been proposed achieves the crossing in a way that is less than adequate. We all recognise the need for Cardiff to develop its economy, and we certainly support the aim of creating jobs. I have a great deal of sympathy for the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan) and my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones) and the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes), who all argued the economic case. There is no doubt that hon. Members who represent that part of south Wales have a compelling duty to try to improve the economy and to bring jobs to their area. I myself come from an area which needs jobs, and I can understand the need to make rapid and lasting progress in this respect.
What I find highly objectionable about the Bill is not the crossing itself but its proposed form, its effect and its cost. It could very well be achieved without destroying a valuable habitat and what I believe will in future be an area of great interest for residents of Cardiff, particularly when Cardiff enjoys the economic regeneration which we all expect. The crossing could retain that interest and also, by creating better communications and industrial connections, achieve the economic benefits which we would all like to see. It could also be constructed at considerably less cost to the taxpayer.
We have had a long discussion about dunlin and redshank and numbers of wading birds. I do not intend to go down that road, but I do want to mention four of the really important aspects of the conservation argument. This is a site of special scientific interest. It is also
1168
scheduled under the Ramsar convention. The environmental requirements, therefore, need to be examined very carefully.
The area to be affected covers some 9 per cent. of the birds of the whole Severn complex, so it is not something to be sniffed at and the number of birds is not insignificant. The area affected is at the top of the tide, so it is of particular interest and value to these birds in periods of very heavy weather. In the hard winter of 1984–85—and, I am sure, in this past winter although we have no figures yet—100 per cent. of the species spent some of their time feeding in this area. It is of clear benefit to them. If they do not have it for feeding, they do not go elsewhere, because there is nowhere else to go; they are just lost to the bird population.
Why should we care about this? Wetlands and coastal habitats of this type are under threat. They are diminishing. We have a clear duty to protect these irreplaceable assets for future generations. The Government have recognised this principle in the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and also through European Community directives in, for example, the Ramsar convention. Are we in this House merely to ignore this? That is not good enough, without the most convincing reasons for doing so.
I might consider my argument a little weaker if this would stop the development and modernisation of Cardiff, but I do believe that it would. If we achieved these essential communications across the Taff estuary, they would in themselves lead to economic activity and to all the benefits of a more effective and vigorous economy in the area.
Moreover, it would be cheaper and easier to build a bridge on concrete piers which would allow the tide to flow and so not destroy the habitat. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) mentioned the cost. It is a significant factor. When it examines this matter, the Committee will need to know the exact costs, the cost of the barrage and of the hydraulically operated sluice gates, together with the cost of the annual and ongoing dredging rather than just the compensation to be paid to the dredging company. It will need to know if significant costs will be incurred by raising the level of water and thus increasing the damp in the adjacent houses. I ask that all those costs be put before the Committee and be compared with the cost of a simple bridge on stilts.
In addition to the loss of habitat and the expense, the county council, in my view—and I say this as an outsider. I admit—has shown a lack of vision and a failure of imagination. While I accept the need to develop the area, the opportunity could have been taken to create a valuable natural reserve and an area of great interest for local people. In the proposed new leisure complex, for example, why could a viewing centre not have been set up overlooking the mud flats, with perhaps a small museum to show local people the value of mud flat and tidal waters for wildlife and explaining the wildlife which exists? That would have been of unique benefit and of great educational value, and it would have fitted in well with the redevelopment of the area.
Leaving the mud flats does not mean choosing between birds and people; it is really making the best use of what is there to help the people and to encouraging interest in the area. The rusty cycles and bedsteads lying on those mud flats are not there just because there are mud flats there, but because people have no interest in the area. If

1169
one were to create an interest and bring out the variety in the area, one could solve that particular problem. Yet instead of this vision, the county council has decided to use the bridge and barrier to go for an inland lagoon which will not only destroy what is natural and special about the area, but will put something which is neat and dull in place of something which is or could be perhaps wild and intriguing.
It is not good enough to claim that the county council will create another habitat and make recompense for what has been lost. New habitats need years in which to create the diversity and complexity of an established habitat. I think of ancient woodland where it has taken 300 or 400 years to develop that complexity. It may not take so long in the Taff estuary—I am no expert on mud flats—but we will not replace one habitat with another at all easily. So we are going to lose something. Although the county council must be encouraged to do as much as possible to replace the habitat, we cannot fool ourselves that we will be successful.
We all support the development of Cardiff. I respect the line taken by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North and his great interest in the economic prosperity of his constituency and area. But we can achieve that without destroying a valuable habitat. We can achieve that without an expensive solution, by going for something that is clearly more cost effective for the taxpayer.
Above all, by destroying the habitat, the county council would be losing an opportunity to create an imaginative site full of interest for the people of the area. If the Bill goes into Committee, these matters must be fully examined, and the Committee should alter the Bill to take account of the valid objections that have been made.
8.30 pm
Dr. John Marek: I agree with many of the points made by the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Carlisle).
I wish to express my concern about what is proposed by the county council in the development in Cardiff. Bills such as this arouse concern and opposition. Depending on what one makes of earlier speeches, the county council may or may not have met the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. That leads to the view that people who build roads often bring a bad name on themselves.
No hon. Member thinks that the road should not be built, but the proposal was introduced in such a way that there was bound to be opposition. There are two parts to the proposal. The first relates to the road and the second to an amenity lake and scenic area. They can be separated, because it is possible to build the road on stilts, costing £4 million or £6 million less than if it is built on a barrage. I would welcome a contradiction from any hon. Member if I am wrong.
We all want the road. Wales needs communications. It has suffered from bad communications for long enough. There are dreadful roads in mid-Wales and no motorway in north Wales. A bypass at Wrexham was built only on the condition that the railway line was singled, thus depriving us of a decent railway service. I have no argument against the road. We need plenty of good roads because our success as a modernised industrialised nation depends on our ability to communicate with the other parts of the country and Europe.
1170
However, the road could be built on stilts. There would have been no opposition if the county council had proposed that idea. Instead, the county council has embarked on an ambitious plan for this derelict area.
Earlier this evening I saw an exhibition, mounted by the county council, with pictures of rotting and rusty metal in the mudflats. The residential area appears to be a quarter or half a mile further up the river. I asked the county council why, if the residential area was further up the river Taff, it could not build a barrage there. Its answer was that it wanted to build a sports arid amenity complex halfway between the barrage and the residential area. Therefore, there is some point in having a barrage lower down the river so that the view can be more scenic.
Mr. James Callaghan: I would not wish my hon. Friend to be under any misapprehension about where the houses are. The houses of Grangetown are a quarter of a mile away, but there is one area in my constituency where the people do not need a viewing centre, because they already look out over the mudflats.
Dr. Marek: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that information. My only knowledge of the area comes from having looked at the maps and pictures two hours ago.
There should have been some compromise before the Bill came before the House. It is no use trying to find out who is to blame, but there has not been enough communication. If there has been a meeting, there has been only one. Something must be done. I share the view of other hon. Members that we should not hold up the Bill on Second Reading. Therefore, I do not intend to talk for one and a half hours. However, I have one or two points to make. The Bill should have a Second Reading and go into Committee, where I hope that meetings can be arranged, arguments can be put forward and we can achieve a compromise.
One possible compromise would be to move the road further north. However, that is not practical, because the road will be extremely expensive, and it appears that the county council would not consider it. Another possibility was mooted by the RSPB, the Cardiff naturalist trusts, and the other environmental bodies, all of which are concerned. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) mentioned four bodies as being against the plan, so one cannot dismiss the environmental arguments.
The RSPB and other environmental bodies have suggested that the bridge should be built on stilts, so that the tide can go in and out. However, that would not satisfy the legitimate aspirations of the county council, which wants to do something for the area so that the residents will have a tidy environment. Moreover, it wants to build the leisure centre in a first-class position. Simply to have the rotting iron remaining there, with the tide going in and out of the mudflats, is not what the county council wishes to see.
Another possibility is to scrape away the spart grass on the other side of the barrage and to have a one or two-acre lake with a shallow end and a wide expanse. One would then hope that, deprived of their natural feeding habitats, the birds would fly over the new road and settle and feed on the other side. I am not a member of the RSPB, nor an expert on birds, but I shall believe that when I see it. The county council is prepared, as my right hon. Friend the

1171
Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan) has said, to build such a lake before constructing the road. That might be a good idea. I am not sure whether invertebrates will be found on the other side of the proposed road construction once the spart grass has been scraped away, so that everything will be available for the birds. However, we should not dismiss that idea until it has been investigated. I know that the county council has undertaken a study, but this solution should be investigated fully to find out whether it would be acceptable.
The RSPB may be worried that, if it gives way on this project, there may be problems. Every two or three months an area used by birds is under threat—whether from a farmer wanting to plough it up, a county council wanting to build a road across it or a company wanting to dig peat out of it to distil whisky.
I am concerned about this matter in general. The RSPB could be right in saying that if the county council goes ahead with its plan but it does not work out, the council could wash its hands of the area. I would welcome a commitment in Committee that the county council would maintain an ongoing interest in the problem. If the road were built with an appropriate area for the waders on the other side of the barrage, that might be adequate. However, if that did not work, I hope the county council will not say, "We built the road five years ago and it is too late to worry about the birds now. We had 8,000 redshanks five years ago, but we have only 2,000 now. We have no clue where the others have gone but they must be somewhere." I hope that the county council will take a more positive attitude. They should realise that there is a serious problem. Redshank numbers are declining on the west coast. Once the council has realised that, perhaps it could spend some money to discover the cause of the decline in numbers and make adequate arrangements with regard to the building of the road.
If the county council could give such a commitment, to have a continuing interest in the bird population once the road has been built, the RSPB could take note of that and therefore have more faith in the council.
There is another possibility which might be entertained. As I understand it, the barrage would cost £42 million and the low level bridge £38 million. It might be possible to build a low level bridge and build a barrage with the extra £4 million or £6 million 200 yards north of the bridge. It would not be necessary to put a road on that barrage, and therefore it would be cheap. That barrage would be built at an angle to satisfy the residents—[Interruption.] I am making a suggestion.
Mr. Stefan Terlezki: Come on.
Dr. Marek: If the hon. Gentleman would like to intervene, I shall gladly give way as I would like to hear what he has to say.
If we give the Bill a Second Reading, we will show that we agree in principle with the proposal although we have some reservations. In the debate we are offering suggestions. These suggestions may be hopeless, but the council should consider them seriously. If the suggestions prove to be useful at the end of the day, the House might have done a service to the members of the public that it seeks to represent.
1172
It is possible to build a bridge on stilts or a low level bridge and use the extra money to build a barrage 200 or 300 yards north of the bridge. From my examination of maps of the area, the bank in question is just that very small distance north of where the bridge might be positioned. If the bridge were built at an angle, it might be possible to satisfy both parties involved in the consideration of the problem.
It might also be possible to build a road partially as a barrage and with stilts in the central part. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Terlezki) should not lower the tone of the debate by his sedentary interventions. This is a serious issue to the people not only of Cardiff but throughout this country from Land's End to John O'Groats. People are seriously worried about the environmental depredations that are taking place every day of the year. The matter is extremely serious and it deserves our careful consideration.
I shall not detain the House for much longer. It is possible to build a low level bridge to form a barrage for most of its route with stilts in the middle. A semi-circular barrage could be built to keep the banks that are important for the dunlin and the redshank. Although there are many acres of mudbanks in the Severn estuary, as other hon. Members have explained, the mudbanks that we are considering tonight have more than their average share of waders. The fact that the area is at the top of the estuary and is therefore the last area to be covered when the tide comes in and the first to be uncovered when the tide goes out makes it very important for wading birds.
In conclusion, I hope that the controversy about this matter can be dispensed with and that the Bill will receive a Second Reading. I hope, too, that in Committee we shall be able to resolve our differences. There must be a middle way in this matter. We must have the road—there is no doubt about that—but we must also preserve our environment.
8.44 pm
Mr. Ray Powell: I will not go down the same road as my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek). He has covered a number of points which I hope will be examined closely by the Committee after the Bill receives its Second Reading.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) began his speech by apologising for taking part in the debate because he did not think that he should be involved as he was an hon. Member for Newport. He thought that he should not become involved in a debate about Cardiff. Having listened to speeches from the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Carlisle) and from the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) and now from my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham, I make no apology for speaking in the debate. My constituency is Ogmore, and the river Taff runs through Ogmore to Cardiff. Most of my constituents shop in Cardiff and go there for their entertainment. I believe that the benefits of the Bill could extend to my constituents.
I am rather surprised that the Conservative Members with Cardiff constituencies have not sought to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I would remind them of a statement made by Nye Bevan that "If you sit on the fence too long, the iron will rot your soul." I would have thought that they would have been open in their support for the Bill. Local authorities in their constituencies, the South

1173
Glamorgan county council and the Conservative party have given much support to the Bill, and I cannot understand why they have not supported it.
In all probability they share the same view that I would like to express regarding my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan). We all listened to his comprehensive speech, which covered most of the issues involved in this short debate. As might be expected from a previous Prime Minister and the present Father of the House, my right hon. Friend made an excellent speech. I take great pleasure in complimenting him on what was an excellent maiden speech on a private Bill. I know that that sentiment would receive sympathetic backing from all hon. Members present tonight.
I have known my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth for at least 30 years. I am familiar with his service and representation to the city of Cardiff and to the Cardiff constituencies that he has represented as there have been parliamentary boundary changes almost every other election. I am sure that the House would unreservedly give its support to a Bill which my right hon. Friend introduced on Second Reading. I am sure that my right hon. Friend would be concerned only about the interests of the constituents that he has served in Cardiff and that he would not propose any measure to the House that might be detrimental to his constituents or to the environment of the Cardiff area in general.
I have no reservations about supporting the Second Reading of the Bill. I know the area well and I have canvassed there on many occasions, in Cardiff, North, South, East and West and indeed in Cardiff, South and Penarth. I did that when Cardiff, South and Penarth was Cardiff and Penarth before the reorganisations many years ago. I know the specific area we are talking about. I believe that the Bill should receive a Second Reading so that a Committee can be set up.
I am even more pleased to support a Bill on the Floor of the House having recently been involved in a controversial debate in the House on whether private Bills were needed and whether hon. Members should sit on Committees discussing them. I share the view that we should make facilities available in the House for private Bills and that hon. Members should serve on the Committees considering them. I know that on occasions that is irksome. Hon. Members may not have a particular interest in a Bill. Nevertheless, I have served on two such Committees, and they were interesting. I am sure that those who are asked to serve on the Committee considering this Bill will also find it interesting.
Having discussed all the issues mentioned by the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones), I am convinced that his arguments are reasonable, forthright and responsible and I feel sure that the Committee will investigate fully the points that he so ably and responsibly raised. After Second Reading, the matters that he raised can be looked at in depth and in detail.
Having read more literature from the preservation societies on this proposal than, perhaps, from South Glamorgan county council, I know that it is necessary to look after the environment. I fought the last general election against a Greenpeace candidate and I learnt more about the environment and that movement than I had known before.
To date, the cost to the county authority is about £60 million and the link road to the M4 from the Grangetown link to the Butetown link should be approved. If the M4
1174
stops where it is now, it appears, from examining the drawings and maps earlier, that the road would lead only to a residential area in Grangetown and through to the docks. If the Bill does not receive its Second Reading a great opportunity will be lost and the road will lead to nowhere. The problems of Grangetown as described by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth will remain unresolved.
If hon. Members had taken the opportunity to look at some of the maps and drawings of some of the areas covered by the proposal and at the proposals of the county councils, they would appreciate that it is necessary for constituents to have their environment changed. A large area of Cardiff could be changed, far beyond the changes set out in the Bill.
The sponsors of the Bill have been kind enough to ensure that we have notice of the petitions against the Bill on the grounds of its potential effects on bird life which have been lodged by four conservation bodies. The county council accepts that the case for those conservation interests deserves careful consideration.
Two petitions have been lodged against the Bill by businesses which are likely to be affected. Negotiations are taking place with those petitioners which it is hoped will result in agreement. It is respectfully submitted that unless negotiations produce an agreed solution an opposed private Bill Committee would be the appropriate forum for considering the case. Most hon. Members have expressed that opinion earlier in the debate.
The county council has offered to the conservation petitioners a commitment to implement the material measures mentioned. The county council will gladly explain the material measures to a Committee of the House and undertake through that Committee to carry out those measures before commencing the construction of the river crossing. That covers the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham.
The county council respectfully called attention to the fact that giving a Second Reading to a private Bill means that the House affirms the principle of the Bill conditionally and subject to the proof of the allegations of fact before the Committee to which the Bill is referred. Those allegations of fact are comprised in the preamble to the Bill on which the case for the Bill is founded. In the circumstances, it is respectfully submitted that it would be proper for the Bill to be given a Second Reading so that the issues which it raises may be thoroughly investigated in Committee. Therefore, I support the Bill and I hope that the House will do likewise.
8.55 pm
Mr. James Callaghan: With the leave of the House, I have an obligation to those who have expressed strong reservations on the Bill to say a few words to try to reassure and to meet the reservations raised by the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Carlisle), the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) and my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek).
The county council's general record in conservation of the environment is well known. I am one of the few people in the House who has an island in his constituency—Flat Holm. If any hon. Member had any doubts about the environmental interests of the county council he need only go to Flat Holm to see what has been done there to preserve

1175
and conserve its heritage. In addition, there is the Gwent-Glamorgan heritage coast, the Cosmeston lakes country park, Caerphilly mountain country park, the medieval village and an ambitious tree-planting project.
I am sure of the bona fides of South Glamorgan county council in this matter. It told me that it does not wish to be seen as vandalistic or insensitive in its consideration. It wishes to find a balanced and sensible compromise. South Glamorgan as an authority is conscious of the need to protect and enhance the quality of the environment, both generally and specifically. It wishes to seek the cooperation of the Nature Conservancy Council, the RSPB and other interested groups in determining the type and nature of compensatory measures. Hon. Members who raised those questions will find that South Glamorgan has every desire to come to some agreement.
I make one final offer to those hon. Members who have expressed their reservations, but not to those who have expressed their support. If they care to come to Cardiff, I shall stand them a good lunch and I believe that they would be convinced by what they saw.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed.

Agricultural and Horticultural Co-operation Grants
8.57 pm
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Selwyn Gummer): I beg to move,
That the draft Agricultural and Horticultural Co-operation Grants (Extension of Period) Order 1986, which was laid before this House on 23rd April, be approved.
The Agriculture Act 1967 provided authority for a scheme of grants to encourage and develop co-operation in the production and marketing of agricultural produce. There have been three extensions, in 1977, in 1980 and again in 1983, the latter ending on 14 May 1986. We propose to extend the period during which a co-operative grants scheme may operate by a maximum of five years, compared with three on previous occasions. I believe that the agricultural and horticultural co-operation scheme has done much over the years to encourage producers to come together and to undertake imaginative and forward-looking investments.
Since 1981–82 expenditure under the AHCS has more than doubled, from about £2 million to over £4 million. Over the same period launching aid paid to new fruit and vegetable co-operatives under EC legislation has risen from virtually nil to £1·2 million. Other grants payable to forage groups in the less favoured areas brings the current annual level of expenditure on co-operative grants to over £5·5 million. Given the growth in expenditure, we have looked at the AHCS in relation to other claims on the limited resources available. We have concluded that there are simply not the resources to allow unlimited further expansion of expenditure under the scheme and that some steps should be taken to bring it under greater control.
We believe that the necessary additional control of expenditure can be brought about by laying down a number of objective criteria by which applications will in future be assessed and by identifying some of the consequences flowing from them. One of my officials has, therefore, written today to the chief executive of Food from Britain setting out the criteria. Copies of the letter will be placed in the Library of the House. However, hon. Members may find it helpful if I outline the main criteria and the effect that they will have on the grants awarded.
The criteria include the funds allocated by Ministers in each financial year to pay grant claims. For 1986–87 the total provision for co-operative grants is about £5 million, about £4·8 million in 1987–88 and about £4·4 million in 1988–89. There is a time lag of up to two years between the award and the payment of the grant. In order to keep expenditure within the provision, therefore, we will need to tailor the level of approvals currently being given to match the money available for later years. One way in which we will do this is to place an upper limit on grant on any individual project of £100,000.
Ministers already restrict the amount of AHCS grant awarded to successful co-operative applicants under EC regulation 355/77. Successful co-operatives can now obtain up to 50 per cent. of the cost of projects from these two sources, which we consider too high when overall resources are limited. We shall therefore in future be limiting AHCS grant in such cases to 15 per cent., which, together with grant under regulation 355/77, will still total up to 40 per cent. of the cost—a substantial incentive.

1177
The supply and demand position of each commodity will also be taken into account. This is very much part and parcel of the Government's policy to bring into the equation the realities of a world which is now in surplus rather than in shortage. As a result, we do not expect capital grants to be made to co-operatives in the cereals sector in future.
The criteria will be applied to applications received by FFB after today and prospective applicants will also be informed of them. We will, of course, continue to make grants available under the scheme for non-capital expenditure, which includes formation costs, feasibility studies, initial managerial salaries and marketing agents fees. Such grants can help to ensure that co-operatives get off to a good start and employ good quality staff to run their businesses.
For a number of years there has been a ceiling on the level of non-capital grant recommendations which FFB can make to Ministers in any one year. This has stood at £450,000, and we are reducing it to £350,000 for 1986–87 in order to stay within the financial resources available. As I have indicated, if we do not take this action now there is every likelihood that expenditure will soon outstrip resources. Nevertheless, expenditure on grants will still be substantial at around £4·4 million in 1988–89.
I am sure that the House will welcome the continuation of the AHCS and will recognise the widespread benefits which it has brought. I am sure that the House would also want it to be carried forward within the new situation brought about by the surplus production, which is now a continuing feature of our agricultural and horticultural life. Therefore, it seems perfectly right that we should make the sort of changes in administration which I have outlined, and I felt that this debate on the statutory instrument ought to give us a chance to acquaint the House with them.
I commend the statutory instrument to the House as a means of ensuring that these grants are available for a further period, but within the context of the overall resources we have to apply, and also with the new situation which we must constantly take into account now that we are concerned with surpluses, not only in this country and Europe, but in the world.
9.5 pm
Mr. John Home Robertson: The Minister of State referred briefly to the need to deal with the new situation that confronts the agriculture industry because of the surpluses that are a new feature of this type of market. It would be helpful to the industry and to many other people if the Government could give a clearer lead about the direction the industry is supposed to be taking. The Opposition support the order. There is a strong case to be made for promoting co-operatives and assisting change to take place, where appropriate, in the agriculture industry.
The only point that I want to put to the Minister relates to the body that has been charged with the task of disbursing funds, Food from Britain. The Minister said that an official in his Department had today written to the chief executive of Food from Britain. Some of those who are involved in the agriculture industry might wonder whether his letter will be returned to him- tomorrow marked "Not known at this address." There is an air of crisis about Food from Britain. A meeting of that organisation has taken place today and it would be useful if the Minister could say something about it.
1178
If this and other marketing schemes that are the responsibility of Food from Britain are to continue—I stress that there is universal support for a national promotional organisation for agricultural produce and for its funding not only by the Government but by the industry—help is needed. The funding of Food from Britain is in a state of crisis. The organisation has been unable to secure the £4·8 million that it needs to run a credible operation during the current year. The Government have guaranteed £3 million, which is welcome and appropriate. The Meat and Livestock Commission is to provide £265,000, but that is considerably less than was envisaged. As yet, nothing has been promised by the Milk Marketing Board, and a poll of cereal producers has yet to take place to find out whether they are prepared to contribute towards the organisation. There needs to be more certainty about the future of Food from Britain. Nevertheless, it might be argued that, because of the uncertainty surrounding it, the agriculture industry is not in a good position to take on this additional burden.
It would be helpful if the Minister could say whether the Government intend Food from Britain to survive and to succeed and whether, if necessary, they are prepared to tide it over. This would be an appropriate opportunity for the Minister to say something about the matter. It would be relevant to this order, because Food from Britain is the organisation through which these funds will be channelled. Again I stress the Opposition's general support for the objectives of the order. I hope that the Minister will be able to allay some of my fears.
9.7 pm
Mr. Colin Shepherd: I commend my hon. Friend the Minister of State for directing resources towards areas of need that are not covered by those commodities that are in surplus. He will have commended himself and his ministerial team to the public as a whole who are casting a careful eye over the agriculture industry and its support mechanisms. What he has done is right, and I congratulate him on doing it.
I have a specific point to put my hon. Friend about the draft order. Previous orders have run for a period of three years. This order is to run for five years. In the light of the remarks of the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr Home Robertson), I should be grateful if my hon. Friend would explain the reason for this extension.
9.8 pm
Mr. Richard Livsey: I welcome the extension of the AHCS support. It is essential for the industry. However, further development of such grants is needed. In the context of the surpluses to which reference has already been made, there is a need to develop new markets and new products. We are depressed by the surpluses, but they should not allow our vision to become clouded. We may be able to produce new products that secure new markets. We should not ignore that.
Undoubtedly, there is under-funding of Food from Britain. However, the industry must be grateful for £3 million this year. That is obviously a help, but there is an immense task ahead. For example, New Zealand promotes its lamb in Britain at a cost of something like £7 million and that shows one of the problems we face in marketing our own food, but there is vast scope here too for us. The Minister said that there were limits on the amount of money that could be spent. I understand that, because for

1179
purposes of good housekeeping he has to work within a budget. However, I should not like to think that the Treasury has placed a dead hand on co-operative grants for agriculture.
As has been said, the industry is in something of a crisis. I have visited co-operative and marketing units on the continent, and it is obvious that a lot of money has been spent on co-operatives there. Continental farmers have advantages because of investment in the past, and we have not caught up with them. I was recently in western France and saw a co-operative that was developing new products. It was bringing forward six new meat products a month and selecting one of them for marketing. As I was leaving the building I noticed that many of the products were stamped and destined for Sainsbury's. We have serious problems to face in competition and marketing and if Food from Britain is in something of a crisis we need to pay attention to that. This is not a contentious issue in terms of politics across the House. The industry needs support, especially in marketing. I support the renewal of the AHCS grants but they need to be beefed up.
9.12 pm
Mr. Gummer: I should like to answer the points that have been raised and to thank Members on both sides of the House for their support.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd) asked about grant extension. We have sought to extend the period from three to five years because we believe that it is helpful for the industry to have security and to know that grants will continue over a longer period. Where we have the chance, it is necessary to give agriculture and horticulture such reassurance. That is because it is much more difficult to operate in a world where the security that comes from shortage has been replaced by the insecurity that is bound to attend surplus.
It is a curious fact within the industry, and one that we must face, that when people no longer have the assurance that they can always market what they produce because of shortage, they have to learn to live in a new kind of world. We want to make sure that there is no danger of people feeling that at some point in the future they will find themselves without these grants. That is why we have extended the period from three to five years.
The hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) asked whether, if the industry was unable to come up with the extra funding for Food from Britain, the Government would tide it over. The Government are already supplying £3 million. We have also agreed to provide additional sums next year, and in future we will supply matching funds on a generous basis, but we are not prepared to come up with more funds if the industry is not prepared to back Food from Britain. That is because Food from Britain works only if the industry is deeply involved in it and shows backing for it. We have no reason to doubt that the industry will produce the money that is necessary.
The hon. Member for East Lothian talked about a state of crisis. The way to create a state of crisis is to say that. There is no state of crisis in Food from Britain. It is continuing to operate successfully. However, it does not have the assurance of its future funding that we had hoped, not because it is not there, but simply because, as so often happens, the agriculture industry takes longer to come to the necessary arrangements. Reasonably, it has been
1180
suggested that until the poll among cereal producers has been carried through it is difficult to see what will come from that area. It is true that the milk marketing boards have not yet fixed a figure, but they have said that they will give generous support in line with the support given by other people.
The hon. Gentleman has been long enough in agriculture to accept that. It is always true that various sectors want to make sure that others are contributing before they put down their money. I can understand that. That and the innate conservatism—if I may use that word—of the agriculture industry taking a little longer to decide what to do override and run against the enthusiasm which we on both sides of the House have for Food from Britain.
I beg the House to accept that it is only if the industry itself shows enthusiasm by putting its money where its mouth is that we shall get the Food from Britain that we want. An enormous sum is not needed, but what is needed must come from the industry.
Mr. Colin Shepherd: Would not the industry do well to refresh its memory by looking at the experience of the French marketing co-operatives to see what can be done? Over the past few years, the progress that the French organisation has made may have been forgotten. Food from Britain was modelled on it. It may have been forgotten how persistence will produce similar results of a dynamic nature.
Mr. Gummer: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right, and that everyone in the House agrees that the agriculture industry would do itself and the nation a great disservice if it did not take seriously the need to provide the funds so that food can be presented with the same enthusiasm, panache and expertise as so many other products are produced. We are spending less per head as a proportion of our income on food than we have in the past. It is important that we ensure that the public are aware of the benefits, particularly of British-grown and produced food.
Mr. Home Robertson: I assure the Minister that, as a cereals producer, I shall vote for a levy when the poll takes place. The fact remains, however, that if the Minister has been reading the papers he will recognise that it is not I who have suggested that there is a crisis, but that it is broadly acknowledged that there is a crisis in Food from Britain. The scale of the crisis could mean that that organisation may not even be able to take part in the Paris show, which would be a tragedy.
Will the Minister give an undertaking that the Government will use such influence as they have with public organisations, such as the Meat and Livestock Commission and milk marketing boards, to ensure that they take their share of the burden? It is not good enough if Food from Britain has to stagger from crisis to crisis. There must be a guarantee to ensure that it can continue to succeed, as it has begun to succeed.
Mr. Gummer: My objection to the word "crisis" was that it is an inappropriate word. It suggests that it might be a continuing crisis of the sort to which the hon. Gentleman refers.
The organisation was a creation of the Government, and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and his predecessor put a great deal of personal support into it. There was also great support from

1181
elsewhere in the House—I am not talking on a party political basis. That had not been done before in Britain. It was an important innovation. It should have been done a long time ago. Now that we have got it going, I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we want to continue it. It is not a crisis, but merely a function of moving from one system to another, and of that new system being a necessary way to bring the industry to the next stage. The industry must be deeply involved in Food from Britain if it is to succeed. That is what I am concerned about.
I do not wish to use the word "crisis", first, because it is not true even if other people outside may have used that word, and, secondly, because such talk is depressing for an industry which does not need to feel depressed. Many people have shown considerable support for the organisation. The Government will continue to make it clear that it is our view that Food from Britain should go from strength to strength. We want it to increase its ability to serve the farming and horticultural community. Therefore, we will go on saying to those in the position of making decisions that they ought to support Food from Britain. We shall not force them to do so. That does not work unless they can recognise the importance of it and provide a good proportion of the funding, with a generous return from the Government.
I welcome the support of the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey) for Food from Britain and his desire for it to succeed. It is true to say that we are late in the business of selling British agricultural products. We have a remarkable range, which is increasingly finding its place in the markets of the world, and we are selling better at home against imported goods. This is because we are beginning to understand much more that food has to be presented and sold with the same expertise as anything else. I wish to see that continue, and I am glad to note that we have all-party support for it.
My response to the first comment made by the hon. Member for East Lothian is that I am concerned about the constant requests that he makes about the need for guidance. Of course the Government must give guidance on what the agriculture industry should do. The aim should be to find opportunities and to encourage people to take up those opportunities.
The purpose of the statutory instrument is to ensure that there is an opportunity to provide grants for goods and services, to the benefit of the industry. The one thing that
1182
the Government must not be led into doing, and must not be pressed to do, is to produce some kind of blueprint that suggests to people what they ought to grow and what they ought not to grow. First, if the Government did this and everybody followed what they said, one would be in surplus very rapidly. Secondly, it suggests that the Government are better at doing the farming than is the farmer himself. That I deny, and I think it to be quite wrong. We must not try to recreate the kind of security which, inevitably, is associated with shortage in a world which, by its very nature, cannot have that security in future. We must, however, ensure that where security can be provided, it is provided.
The purpose of the statutory instrument and the extension of the period is precisely to give some security where we can guarantee it, but not to give the false security provided by the White Paper "Food From Our Own Resources". That suggested that we ought to do things when, almost as soon as that document was printed, we learnt we should not have done at all.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Agricultural and Horticultural Co-operation Grants (Extension of Period) Order 1986, which was laid before this House on 23rd April, be approved.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 79(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.)

VALUE ADDED TAX
That the Value Added Tax (Land) Order 1986 (S.I., 1986, No. 704), dated 15th April 1986, a copy of which was laid before this House on 16th April, be approved.
That the Value Added Tax (Land) (No. 2) Order 1986 (S.I., 1986, No. 716), dated 17th April 1986, a copy of which was laid before this House on 18th April, be approved.—[Mr. Neubert.]
Question agreed to.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS (JOINT COMMITTEE)
Ordered,
That Mr. Stuart Randall he discharged from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and Mr. William Cash and Mr. Nick Raynsford be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Neubert.

Overseas Civil Service (War Service Credits)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Neubert.]
9.23 pm
Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: I declare a pecuniary interest in the subject that I bring to the attention of the House. If the Government respond favourably to the debate I, as a retired member of the overseas civil service with wartime service in the Royal Air Force, will be a beneficiary.
I hope that my hon. Friends the Members for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) and for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) will be successful in intervening before the Minister replies to the debate. I am authorised by my hon. Friends the Members for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) and for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) to say that they are unable to be here but support what I am about to say.
The Colonial Service, now called Her Majesty's Overseas Civil Service, together with the Indian Civil Service and the Sudan Civil Service, was responsible for the government of the British empire. Although recruited by the United Kingdom Government in London, its members were employed and paid by the Governments of the colonies to which they were assigned. They served the British Crown and British interests abroad in many different capacities, as administrators, accountants, engineers, policemen, educationists and in other professions. They worked under all sorts of adverse conditions of climate and health, often with primitive accommodation and usually without even the normal amenities of civilisation. The consequence was usually shorter careers, early retirement and shorter lives. They endured those conditions because, to be a member of the Colonial Service, with its personal challenges, dangers and adventures was worthwhile and a reward in itself. They were the instrument of Britain's contribution to the welfare of its overseas territories and they were proud that under them the standards of government, law and order and justice were raised to levels never known before, and in some cases since, in the countries concerned.
Although almost all its members were graduates and professional men and women, specially selected for their jobs, the Colonial Service was always the most neglected of the British public services. Its pay and pensions were comparatively low, being fixed according to the relative poverty of the colonies providing them and often influenced by hostile local politicians.
That does not matter so much now, when most of them are retired, but what does rankle with those who were first appointed to their colonies after serving in the second world war is the British Government's refusal to include in their pension computation an element on account of their war service. All the other public services in Britain—the Home Civil Service, the Diplomatic Service, the Armed Forces, the police, and even the teachers—have their war service taken into account when their pensions are calculated and paid. Only the Colonial Service—the Overseas Civil Service—does not. Members of the other public services who were appointed after service in the war get credits for that war service in their pensions on the simple ground that they should not suffer in their pensions compared with colleagues who did not serve in the war.
1184
The reason for that distinction—it might almost be called discrimination—is simple. Members of the Overseas Civil Service were, technically speaking, employed by colonial Governments and no colonial Government was obliged, nor was any Government after independence expected, to pay the pensions of their expatriates beyond that appropriate to their actual service in the colony. Her Majesty's Government alone had the power and responsibility to pay the comparatively small sum involved but have always refused to do so, although the claim has been considered at the highest level. What my right hon. Friend the Minister of State now tells complainants is:
"As you know this matter went forward to the 1983 Public Expenditure Survey where it received very careful consideration. I am afraid we were forced to conclude that it would not be possible to accommodate such a large and continuing commitment among the numerous claims on available resources. I am sure you will appreciate the overriding need to contain public expenditure: this is an example of the hard choices the government has to make. Given the continuing need to contain public expenditure it would not be right for me to hold out any hope that the position will ease, and that I might be able to reopen the issue in the foreseeable future."
I quote from a letter recently sent by my right hon. Friend.
The cost of what my right hon. Friend called "this large and continuing commitment" has been estimated by my right hon. Friend's Department at £3 million a year, and the number of people eligible at 4,600. These are probably over-estimates. In any case, the money could easily be found in savings elsewhere. A sum of £3 million, for example, is less than that now being wasted on the net cost of issuing dog licences. It is less than the cost of many unimportant items in the Government's research programme. No account is taken of the clawback in income tax. The number of people involved is declining every year with the deaths of the people concerned, most of whom are elderly. On the other hand, the small sum involved in each case could make a significant difference to the comfort of men and women in their declining years who served their country exceptionally well.
9.31 pm
Mrs. Ann Winterton: I am glad to have the opportunity to say a few words to support my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook), who has raised this subject on the Adjournment debate.
This anomaly was first brought to my attention by a constituent who is a member of the Overseas Service Pensioners' Association. Since that time I have been extremely interested in the matter. I cannot agree with the Government's technical excuses for not treating these pensioners in a similar way to other public servants with regard to war credits. The Government have a moral duty which they should accept with good grace.
Relatively speaking, the amounts of money involved are extremely small but they would make a great deal of difference to the pensioners concerned. If the sums were granted to the pensioners, they would feel they had been treated in an equitable way in comparison with the other public servants. I agree with the cogent arguments presented by my hon. Friend and I urge my right hon. Friend the Minister to reconsider the matter.
9.33 pm
Mr. Alan Howarth: Some of our most distinguished citizens will share my gratitude to my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) for raising this question on the Adjournment.
The unwillingness of successive Governments to recognise, for pensionable purposes, the war service of colonial civil servants is a regrettable, deplorable, failure. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will acknowledge that the time has come for the Government to accept that they must shoulder these undoubtedly strong moral obligations.
The colonial civil servants were recruited by the Government and were servants of the Crown. They have as much right to recognition as other servants of the Crown—home civil servants, officers of local government or teachers. They bore the burden and the heat of the day, and they served often in the most arduous of conditions. They made considerable personal sacrifices, born out of dedication and devotion. Their services are overdue for recognition.
We should also acknowledge that the end of the empire in the 1950s and 1960s meant for some, termination of their career and considerable difficulties in finding new employment and further pension opportunities. That strengthens the moral argument in favour of our case, and I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will be able to respond to it.
There has certainly been discrimination. There is no conceivable reason why the Government should draw a distinction between colonial civil servants and others. On a technical level, it is arguable that they were not employees of the United Kingdom. Government, but, as I have said, they were recruited by the Colonial Office and were servants of the Crown. That factor should be regarded as paramount by the Government.
My right hon. Friend the Minister is altogether too honest and benevolent a man to ignore such considerations. I hope that he agrees that the sum involved in putting right that wrong amounts to about £3 million and that, in all the circumstances of today, the Government should be willing to find it.
9.35 pm
The Minister for Overseas Development (Mr. Timothy Raison): The House has listened carefully to the arguments put so clearly and directly by my hon. Friends the Members for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook), for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton), and for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth). Obviously, this topic is not discussed very often in the House. However, expenditure on Colonial Service pensions accounts for about £140 million this year. Incidentally, that is about one tenth of my Department's total expenditure, and the administration of those pensions to some 46,000 people is a major task of the Department.
I and my officials devote considerable time and effort to dealing with the questions raised on behalf of overseas pensioners by my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington, by other hon. Members and by the Overseas Service Pensioners Association; and rightly so. Of course, I endorse the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington about the quality of the work carried out by our Colonial Service. Its reputation will not be forgotten, but it was nevertheless good to be reminded of it again tonight. We are rightly proud of it.
1186
There is no disagreement on the basic point that the people involved have rendered great service to the United Kingdom, and, in particular, to the colonial territories in which they were employed. In my job there are inevitably many pressures on me to find new sums of money. That applies to overseas pensioners as well as to the general demands in connection with the aid programme. I receive a steady stream of letters, asking for more money for one thing or another. I am talking about not just the wide range of Overseas Development Administration activities but pensions too.
Over the years, the Overseas Service Pensioners Association has been active in proposing either that the field of people who benefit under the arrangements should be widened or, alternatively, that the benefits should be improved. War service credit for post-war entrants to the Colonial Service is an example of the second kind. We have always tried to give it very careful consideration. The argument that my hon. Friends have put tonight was put with equal vigour to my predecessor, the late Sir Neil Marten, and myself. I fully understand the substance of the case—that, since the concession had been extended to the main British public service groups in the 1970s to bring them into line with the Home Civil Service, it should in fairness be granted to overseas pensioners as well. It has also been argued that the cost of doing this for overseas pensioners—the figure of more than £3 million a year has been quoted previously and again tonight—is insignificant. But that cost could run for many years.
It is worth remembering that there are two types of war service credit. The first applies to officers who were in pensionable public service employment immediately before military service in the second world war, and whose careers were interrupted by the time that they spent in the armed forces. The war service of that group of officers counts in full towards their public service pensions. Colonial and United Kingdom public servants enjoy equal rights in that regard.
The second type of war service credit applies to officers who entered public service immediately after demobilisation. United Kingdom officers are allowed to count half of their military service for pension purposes. This puts them on a par with civil servants who were taken on during the war years on an unestablished basis.
The war service concession for post-war entrants was granted to United Kingdom civil servants in 1946. and to the main United Kingdom public sector groups, such as police, firemen, prison officers, teachers, Health Service workers and local government staff, in the 1970s. These arrangements, however, do not extend to colonial public servants, whose pensionable service was reckoned only from the date of their appointment to the Colonial Service.
It is difficult at this time to establish precisely why war service credit was not extended to the Colonial Service immediately after the second world war. Such evidence as there is suggests that wartime conditions of service in the Home Civil Service and Colonial Service were judged not to be on a par, so there was no automatic justification for treating officers in the same way.
In the case of the Home Civil Service, the original concession in 1946 was introduced to remove an anomaly which would otherwise have arisen between war-rime entrants and post-war entrants to the Home Civil Service. The Superannuation Act 1935 provided that the unestablished service of staff who subsequently became established without a break in service should reckon at one

1187
half its length for superannuation purposes. Recruitment to the Home Civil Service during the war was on an unestablished basis. Those who stayed on after the war would have been at an advantage, therefore, compared with those whose entry to the Civil Service was delayed by their war service. The 1946 Act simply provided that ex-service men and women should be treated no less generously in this respect than those who had entered the Civil Service during the war.
As I understand it, the same anomaly did not arise in the Colonial Service or, at any rate, did not arise in anything like the same degree. The terms of recruitment to the Colonial Service during the war varied from territory to territory and according to the particular discipline. Recruitment during the war years was also on a very much smaller scale—about 200 appointments a year, compared with 1,200 to 1,500 a year after the war.
This serves to underline the point that colonial pension scheme regulations did not, and should not, automatically mirror those of the United Kingdom public service. The provisions differed in several respects, often to the advantage of the overseas pensioner. For example, overseas pensioners have a retirement age of 55 rather than 60 and their pensions are inflation-proofed from that age. Unlike home civil servants, they can choose, within limits, how much of their pension may be commuted. They had the right to retire at independence on compensation terms which were by no means ungenerous. Many officers were able to pursue successful second careers having retired from overseas service. My hon. Friend the Member for Orpington is an example. It is difficult to arrive at a comparison of the relative worth of benefits from different superannuation arrangements, but I think that it would be generally accepted that the provisions for former Colonial Service officers, taken as a whole, are a fair recompense for past service. In some respects, the terms for the two categories differed. In certain respects, the colonial servants received favourable treatment.
1188
It was against this general background that in 1983 we looked into the question of war service credit for post-war entrants to the Colonial Service. The conclusion then, among many hard and difficult choices, was that the resources could not be found. That remains the position. The Government are committed to the firm control of public expenditure. It is an unavoidable consequence of our policy that many claims, many of them worthy in themselves, for extra resources of one kind or another cannot be accommodated.
It has been argued that the cost involved is minimal. I cannot accept that. Although the figure of £3 million has been cited in the debate, and was cited by us in 1983, my Department has carried out more recent work, based on a random sample of pensioners' records, which has shown that the costs could be significantly higher—perhaps £5 million to £6 million a year. Those are sample figures. I am not claiming that they are exactly right, but they indicate a higher figure than that cited by my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington. It must be accepted that sums of this order raise public expenditure implications for the programmes for which I am responsible. Additional resources would have to be found if war service credit were to be granted to Colonial Service pensioners.
There is strong feeling on this issue. My hon. Friends have put the case tonight and, over the years, I have received quite a lot of correspondence on it. I hope that my hon. Friends will recognise our concern to strike the appropriate balance between the need to control public expenditure and demands on my Department and the claims of overseas pensioners for enhanced benefits. I believe, as I have tried to show, that, on the whole, overseas pensioners are by no means ill-served by the arrangements which successive Governments have put in place over the years and by the scale of the provisions now made for them. I am afraid that I have to say that, although my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington has argued his case cogently and I accept that there is strong feeling on this matter, I am not able to give my hon. Friend the assurance for which he has asked.

Afghanistan
9.45 pm
Viscount Cranborne: I thank my right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development for his willingness to answer an Adjournment debate twice in one evening. That goes way beyond the call of duty. I am grateful to him for the good humour he has shown in contemplating such a prospect.
I should like to raise the subject of aid to alleviate the severe difficulties experienced in Afghanistan by the population that remains in that unfortunate country. My right hon. Friend has rightly many times drawn the attention of the House to the Government's generous help to refugees in Pakistan. At least 3 million of those unfortunate people have been driven from their homes by a cruel conflict in their native country. My right hon. Friend's Department is giving direct about £4·8 million to the refugees. About £1 million is being given via the EEC for the same purpose. Of course, I welcome that.
Those of us who have visited the refugee camps know that, by and large, the money is extremely well spent. It is recognised that, although the refugees in Pakistan are treated well and are relatively well off by refugee standards, the real need is inside Afghanistan. On 13 March this year, I was delighted to note the unanimity in the House when my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moynihan) raised this matter in an Adjournment debate. My right hon. Friend the Minister need look no further than to the comments of the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) who replied to the debate on behalf of the Opposition. The hon. Gentleman stated.
"I look forward to hearing how the Minister responds, particularly to the request for appropriate mechanisms for channelling aid to those who suffer within the country. I agree with what the hon. Member for Dorset, South said about the need for a Government response on this. He would be the first to recognise that in the peculiar circumstances of Afghanistan, probably that response will have to be through non-governmental organisations such as his, because of the flexibility that they can bring. I congratulate that voluntary organisation on the work it has already done, and I trust that the Minister will respond positively to what has been said."—[Official Report, 13 March, 1986; Vol. 93, c. 1213.]
I hope that my right hon. Friend will take note of the unanimity of view expressed in that debate.
The services were always poor in Afghanistan, even before this latest conflict. It is quite clear that a central administration which was poor and which could not provide any sort of development aid before 1979 is wholly incapable of doing that now, when most of the country is in the hands of people opposed to the Kabul regime. It is important for us to recognise the very large number of people indeed who have been displaced. Not only have they taken refuge outside the country—3 million in Pakistan and perhaps another 1·5 million in Iran—but very large numbers have also been driven from their homes to become internal refugees. There is, therefore, a crying need for emergency aid of a humanitarian kind, particularly food and medical services.
My right hon. Friend will know that the organisation to which the hon. Member for Swansea, East referred during the course of that last debate is one of which I have the honour to be chairman, a registered charity called Afghanaid. I think that my right hon. Friend will agree that it has begun to establish a record for being able to
1190
administer, in particular, food programmes inside the country on a fairly substantial scale. Not only can we propose the programmes but we can carry them out and, equally important, we can monitor the results. All those who have been donors to our food programme have admitted that the monitoring which has been carried out under what are necessarily extraordinarily difficult circumstances has been very satisfactory. I would be interested if my right hon. Friend could say something about that in his reply.
Apart from emergency aid, we ought also to consider development aid. Afghanistan was always a very poor country. Once the immediate emergency is under control—and much needs to be done—we should consider the question of development aid, which must include education and agricultural research and development. For all these projects, it is also essential that, if we are to carry them out, they should be based on professional and sensible research. It is impossible to determine the needs unless professional people are sent into the country to interview refugees and to decide what is needed and where.
If my right hon. Friend could look favourably on projects of this kind, he should stipulate that the proposals be based on the kind of research which is now becoming possible, thanks to the co-ordination of the various voluntary agencies which have become so active inside Afghanistan. In that context I would like to mention a federation of voluntary agencies interested in sending help into Afghanistan for the displaced persons there.
We have heard many rumours of late to the effect that the Soviets would like to withdraw from Afghanistan, rumours that I take with a pinch of salt. However, and my right hon. Friend must forgive me for being biased, if such a splendid thing should occur, we would have to consider how we should consult the refugees and indeed the whole Afghan population on their needs. We must also decide what mechanisms there should be for distributing aid if the Soviets withdraw, and perhaps if such an eventuality should occur, we should examine such possibilities as well.
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for listening to this short debate, and I hope that he will be able to give some sort of reassurance to the people who deserve our help and who, for political reasons, have not been able to receive the help that their fellow citizens outside the country have.
9.55 pm
The Minister for Overseas Development (Mr. Timothy Raison): My hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Cranborne) has a deep commitment to the cause of the people of Afghanistan who have suffered so terribly under the recent onslaught on them. He has spoken, as he has before, with considerable eloquence about the problems. The British Government regard the situation in Afghanistan seriously. The disruption and devastation caused by the Soviet occupation forces are a matter of the greatest concern.
Perhaps it may help the House if I touch briefly on what we see to be some of the aims of Soviet policy. The occupying troops and the regime forces are waging a callous and ruthless war against the resistance with all the weapons at their disposal. They seek out and ambush convoys, try to locate and destroy bases and do all that they can to crush the courageous opposition. We firmly support the courageous struggle of the Afghan people.

1191
The Soviets are only too aware of the almost total rejection of the regime and its Soviet backers and of the resulting support given by the population to the Mujahadin with transport, communications or supplies. They have therefore followed a deliberate policy of displacing the rural population, either to neighbouring countries or into Afghan cities, making it easier to control the people and to isolate and identify the resistance. They do this through reprisals for Mujahadin attacks, destroying whole villages and massacring the inhabitants and by destroying rural infrastructure. Fields are laid waste, irrigation channels bombed and the lands mined. I do not propose to rehearse again the points covered by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary in the House on 13 March, but any hon. Member wishing to discover more details may consult the report produced for the United Nations Secretary-General by Mr. Ermacora which is in the Library, and which presents a devasting picture of the cruel events happening in Afghanistan.
There has never been the closest Government control in large areas of Afghanistan, but the Soviet and regime policy has resulted in the displacement within Afghanistan of some 1 million people deprived of their usual support for food, health care and education. The Government recognise that it is important that we should do all that we can to help them to maintain the best possible existence in their own country, to prevent them fleeing to add to the statistics of helpless refugees in neighbouring states. There they would become more wretched, a burden on the international community and on even the most generous of host countries, and their flight would contribute further to the breakdown of the traditional cultural and structure of society in Afghanistan.
Soviet troop withdrawal and the restoration of the rights of the Afghan people remain the key to the problem. Any settlement must take into account the position of the resistance and the refugees, or it will never stick. We strongly support the United Nations Secretary-General's efforts to secure a political settlement on the basis of successive United Nations resolutions. Mr. Gorbachev has talked of early withdrawal, but the aggressive pursuit of the war and the Sovietisation of Afghanistan belie these statements. We appeal to the Soviet Union to translate these words into reality.
As the House knows, we have already supported various operations by the Afghan Support Committee and Afghanaid. We financed the 1984 report by Dr. D'Souza to which my hon. Friend referred, on the threat of famine and have subsequently provided £50,000 to Afghanaid to relieve famine in Afghanistan. I pay tribute to the skill and dedication of those in Afghanaid who conducted this difficult operation.
My hon. Friend talked about the future. He must recognise the great difficulty that can occur in giving direct assistance to those displaced persons in Afghanistan. We must be realistic, and I cannot at the moment give blanket assurances about the next stage. I will examine carefully proposals put to me by Afghanaid or by similar organisations. Our policy is to give assistance to destitute Afghan refugees and displaced persons wherever they might be, those who have been forced to leave their homes because of the fighting in Afghanistan.
As I said, it is difficult to give aid in a country that is dominated by a far from friendly power—
It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Donald Thompson.]
Mr. Raison: My hon. Friend talked about two aspects of the matter—the immediate relief operation and the need for longer-term development. As far as the needs of the relief operations are concerned, as he knows, we are studying carefully the reports of what has happened. We have monitored the accounts put forward to show how the £50,000 that we gave to Afghanaid, has been spent. I understand that the accounts were presented in Pushtu, but we have managed to translate them. It seems that the money has been spent in the ways that it was intended to be used. We will, however, think carefully about how we will respond next.
My hon. Friend will recognise that the long-term developments are particularly difficult. The normal conditions for long-term development aid are that it is on a Government to Government basis. It requires detailed and careful planning and it is normally a response to something put forward by the Government of the country involved.
None of these conditions apply to Afghanistan. There is some difference of dimension between supplying short-term relief supplies and in trying to become involved in the longer-term development processes. I cannot say at present that I will undertake to embark on long-term development programmes. If proposals are put to us we will consider them carefully. The real hope for long-term development must be a return to normality and to freedom in Afghanistan.
We strongly advise the stand of the Afghan refugees and of their neighbours in Pakistan. The plight of the 3 million refugees and the difficult position of Pakistan was brought home to my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs during his recent visit. During his visit he announced a £4·8 million bilateral aid programme for Afghan refugees which marks an increase of 17 per cent. over last year. That demonstrates that we have not forgotten these people. That sum represents a significant increase in aid and a significant step on the Government's part to show that we realise that the problem is not one that can simply be tucked away and that we must continue to bear it in mind.
We also provide food through the European Community. Seven million pounds worth of food aid will be delivered in 1986 of which our share is £1·4 million. Since the Soviet invasion, we have given more than £32 million to these people. That money has been donated mostly through the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and also through organisations such as the Red Cross and various British charities.
We are also developing a new scheme for training refugees. We have already given substantial assistance to the Allama Iqbal Open University in Pakistan, particularly in the vocational and mass education field. We are planning—by translating the material into Pushtu—to extend the work of the University into the refugee camps. That will have the advantage that the facilities will be available to the refugees without displacing Pakistanis as would be the case with conventional educational institutions. In addition, as the House will know, we are now providing medical treatment for Afghans who have been wounded in the fighting.

1193
I visited Pakistan two years ago. I went to Peshawar where I met some of the refugees from Afghanistan who told me of their troubles and I visited the hospital where they were being treated for their wounds. Anyone who visits that place will recognise the extent of the cruel struggle that is taking place in that area. Therefore, it is right that we should be talking about this again in the House this evening. I would only say that I respect what
1194
my hon. Friend has to say about these matters. I shall always listen carefully to him and consider carefully what we can do. The Government's record in helping the refugees has been a creditable one, but, given the nature of their plight, that is no more than should be the case and that is something that we must not forget.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at five minutes past Ten o'clock.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Physical Education
  Physical Education
  Burnham Further Education Regulations
  Burnham Further Education Regulations
  Wigan
  Wigan
  Technical Schools
  Technical Schools
  Comprehensive Schools
  Comprehensive Schools
WALES
  Acid Pollution
  Acid Pollution
  Housing (Improvement Grants)
  Housing (Improvement Grants)
  Spectacles
  Spectacles
  Mentally Handicapped People
  Mentally Handicapped People
  Nurses
  Nurses
  Welsh Development Agency
  Welsh Development Agency
SCOTLAND
  Acid Pollution
  Acid Pollution
  Housing Support Grant
  Housing Support Grant
  Spectacles
  Spectacles
  Local Authority Expenditure
  Local Authority Expenditure
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Shipbuilding
  Shipbuilding
  Life Assurance
  Life Assurance
  Electric Fences (Main Governors)
  Electric Fences (Main Governors)
  Strategic Defence Initiative
  Strategic Defence Initiative
  Trade Statistics
  Trade Statistics
  Prices
  Prices
  West Germany
  West Germany
PRIME MINISTER
  Cruise Missiles
  Cruise Missiles
  Military Bands
  Military Bands
  Fontainebleau Agreement
  Fontainebleau Agreement
  EC (Value Added Tax)
  EC (Value Added Tax)
  Shipbuilding (Exchange Rate)
  Shipbuilding (Exchange Rate)
  Strategic Defence Initiative
  Strategic Defence Initiative
  Bilderberg Conference
  Bilderberg Conference
  Engagements
  Engagements
  Terrorist Incidents
  Terrorist Incidents
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Libyan Nationals
  Libyan Nationals
  Immigration
  Immigration
  West Yorkshire Metropolitan Police
  West Yorkshire Metropolitan Police
  Football Matches (Public Safety)
  Football Matches (Public Safety)
  Mr. J. C. Galbraith
  Mr. J. C. Galbraith
  Crime Statistics
  Crime Statistics
  Police Complaints Authority
  Police Complaints Authority
  Mr. Ben Rabha
  Mr. Ben Rabha
ENERGY
  Nuclear Industry Radioactive Waste Executive
  Nuclear Industry Radioactive Waste Executive
  Nuclear Materials
  Nuclear Materials
EMPLOYMENT
  Sunday Working
  Sunday Working
  Enterprise Allowance Scheme
  Enterprise Allowance Scheme
  Community Programme
  Community Programme
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  UN General Assembly
  UN General Assembly
  Libya
  Libya
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Assembly Elections
  Assembly Elections
  Human Rights
  Human Rights
  Integrated Education
  Integrated Education
  Wages Bill
  Wages Bill
  Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Conference
  Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Conference
  Anglo-Irish Agreement
  Anglo-Irish Agreement
  Food Processing Industry
  Food Processing Industry
  Plastic Bullets
  Plastic Bullets
  Retraining Programme
  Retraining Programme
  Royal Ulster Constabulary
  Royal Ulster Constabulary
  Marriages
  Marriages
  Benefits
  Benefits
  Spectacles
  Spectacles
  Community Technical Aid
  Community Technical Aid
  Departmental Costs
  Departmental Costs
  Supplementary Benefit
  Supplementary Benefit
  Business Start-ups
  Business Start-ups
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Pension Age
  Pension Age
  AIDS
  AIDS
  Repetitive Strain Injury
  Repetitive Strain Injury
  Residential Homes
  Residential Homes
  Artificial Eyes
  Artificial Eyes
  NHS (Housing Stock)
  NHS (Housing Stock)
  Tranquilliser Addiction
  Tranquilliser Addiction
  Spectacles
  Spectacles
  Surplus Hospital Land
  Surplus Hospital Land
  Disabled Persons
  Disabled Persons
  Mortality Statistics
  Mortality Statistics
  Primary Health Care
  Primary Health Care
  Voluntary Unemployment
  Voluntary Unemployment
  Board and Lodging
  Board and Lodging
  Child Care
  Child Care
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Agriculture Production (Expenditure)
  Agriculture Production (Expenditure)
  Apples and Pears
  Apples and Pears
  Net Farm Incomes
  Net Farm Incomes
  White Papers
  White Papers
  Animals (Slaughter)
  Animals (Slaughter)
  Agricultural Expenditure
  Agricultural Expenditure
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Freeports
  Freeports
  United Kingdom Companies (Customs Information)
  United Kingdom Companies (Customs Information)
  Civil Servants (Ethnic Origin)
  Civil Servants (Ethnic Origin)
  Balance of Trade
  Balance of Trade
  Construction Industry
  Construction Industry
  Direct Cosmetics Ltd.
  Direct Cosmetics Ltd.
  Exchange Rate
  Exchange Rate
  Finance Bill
  Finance Bill
  Economic and Finance Council
  Economic and Finance Council
  Tax Allowances
  Tax Allowances
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  Royal Ordnance Companies
  Royal Ordnance Companies
TRANSPORT
  Vehicle Registration Prefix
  Vehicle Registration Prefix
  Bus Services
  Bus Services
  Civil Aviation Conference
  Civil Aviation Conference
  Driving Licences
  Driving Licences
  A5 (Traffic Flow)
  A5 (Traffic Flow)
  M6 North Orbital Route
  M6 North Orbital Route
  Compulsory Purchase
  Compulsory Purchase
THE ARTS
  Jubilee Gardens
  Jubilee Gardens
ENVIRONMENT
  Rates
  Rates
  Asbestos
  Asbestos
  Anglian Water Authority
  Anglian Water Authority
  Council House Sales (Moneylenders)
  Council House Sales (Moneylenders)
  Ex-GLC Staff
  Ex-GLC Staff
  London Residuary Body
  London Residuary Body
  GLC Properties (Sale)
  GLC Properties (Sale)
  London Marathon
  London Marathon
  GLC (Abolition)
  GLC (Abolition)
  Monkton House, Sussex
  Monkton House, Sussex
  Derelict Land
  Derelict Land
Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Hereford): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

Skill Shortages in Manufacturing
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they are taking to remedy the shortage of skilled workers in manufacturing industry.
The Secretary of State for Employment (Lord Young of Graffham): My Lords, recent evidence on skill shortages in manufacturing industry shows that some skills are in short supply in a limited number of sectors. It is primarily for industry itself to resolve this, but the Government are investing some £1·4 billion this year in the Manpower Services Commission's vocational education and training programmes in order to create a more positive environment for training and make some direct contribution to the supply of skills in most demand.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware—I am sure that he is—that just last month, in a joint report between the CBI and the Manpower Services Commission, it was stated that one in seven manufacturing firms in this country has had to reduce production because of a lack of skilled workers? Do the Government accept no responsibility whatever for training workers in this country in the skills necessary to sustain our manufacturing industry?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I should have thought that expenditure of £1·4 billion—an all-time high—would show that this Government are very concerned indeed to ensure an adequate supply of skilled labour.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, is the Minister aware that yesterday his reply when he was asked about the number of firms applying for adult training schemes was very sad? The vast majority of firms are not making any attempt to carry out adult training. Is it not therefore ironic that the firms that need skilled workers are not taking part in the adult training schemes that are available? Will the noble Lord elaborate on what the Government intend to do to get these firms which need skilled workers to go in for the simple matter of training them so that they become available?
Lord Young of Graffham: Yes, my Lords, but these are two distinct matters. I can express some satisfaction with the Government's efforts towards meeting the demand for skills in short supply but at the same time dissatisfaction about the view taken by employers towards their responsibilities for carrying out training.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the shortage of skilled engineers and draughtsmen, particularly in Lancashire? What proportion of the money is being allocated for training such people?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, the usual question I am asked in relation to Lancashire concerns the high level of unemployment. I was not aware until this moment that draughtsmen were in short supply there. I shall look into the matter.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, is the noble Lord not as disturbed as the rest of us that every time in the postwar economic history of Britain there has been a resurgence of economic activity, and in particular new prospects for our exporting abroad, we seem to come across the same problem? May I mention that I have just come back from visiting an exhibition held by GEC at Wembley, where I was speaking to its executives about problems over the recruitment of trained engineers? I was told that the company was extremely short of people in this category.
Lord Young of Graffham: Yes, my Lords, but that has been a symptom of postwar experience in this country alongside the decline of the enterprise culture. We have somehow not bothered about training or about the provision of engineers. We have looked more towards other skills. That is changing today. I only hope that we have time to make up the shortage.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that whereas there are 600,000 apprentices in West Germany there are only 40,000 in this country? Is he further aware that whereas 94 per cent. of 17 year-olds in Japan are at school or in full-time education, the figure is only 30 per cent. in this country? Is he also aware that between 1981 and 1984 the university population of this country was cut by 10,000? There were 10,000 fewer university students in 1984 than in 1981. Is this not a government responsibility?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, it is, I believe, safe to say that, ever since 1982 when I went to the Manpower Services Commission, and, indeed, for years before, I was aware of the woefully inadequate measures of training for young people. However, it is unfair to compare apprenticeships which are a formal part of the German education and training system and apprenticeships in this country which have been limited in the main to the construction and engineering sectors. Today, we have the national two-year YTS. We have training for young people on a scale unparalleled in our history. We shall see as the years go by that we catch up with our principal competitors. As to universities, that is another question.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the comparatively high wages that it has been necessary in the past to pay apprentices have been one reason why firms have been loath to take on youngsters for training?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, in 1983, the electricians' union agreed a national deal under which it halved the level of apprentice wages. As a result, the number of apprentices in the electricity industry more than doubled. The engineers refused to do the same, and the decline continued. There is a great correlation between the level of young people's wages and the opportunities for work.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we welcome the allocation of money for training. Can the noble Lord say precisely how this money is to be spent and through which agencies it will be channelled by his department? Can he say how many skilled workers over the next years will be trained as a result and in what branches of skill they will be trained?
Lord Young of Graffham: Of course, my Lords; up to about 400,000 young people a year will be entering YTS. They will be coming out of a two-year YTS well on the road towards vocational qualifications. That is unparalleled in our history. In a year or two's time, there will be up to 700,000 young people engaged on vocational skill training. In addition, we shall be helping up to a quarter of a million people each year on adult training schemes. There has never been such a concerted effort towards training by government at any time in our history. Ten years ago, when the problem of youth training first came up, the then government looked at the principle of YTS and discarded it because of cost. That speaks for itself.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, is the Minister encouraging girls as well as young men to go into engineering? I understand that many girls are interested in pursuing this line.
Lord Young of Graffham: Yes, my Lords. During my time as chairman of the Manpower Services Commission we gave total backing to WISE and towards programmes helping young women and young girls to go into engineering. Indeed, the principle of all Manpower Services Commission schemes has been no discrimination on grounds of sex or, for that matter, on any ground.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: Is the noble Lord aware, as he has mentioned the position 10 years ago, that unemployment was then at less than a million? Will he also take account of the serious complaints emanating from the universities and the polytechnics at the Government cutback in the very important work of producing scientists and engineers?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, 10 years ago was the time when we should have laid the foundation for training young people and perhaps then the outcome would have been better. That is, however, a different question. As for universities and polytechnics, the Government have to ensure that the amount of research and training done helps to play a part in the economic life of the nation and is not research done simply for its own sake.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, in relation to the question asked by the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition, is my noble friend aware that there are well over 1,000
388
places in engineering unfilled at British universities because the schools are not turning out people qualified to enter upon these courses?
Lord Young of Graffham: Yes, my Lords, and a further cause of concern is this. The Government have entered upon a programme to give additional resources to the universities for the provision of more electronic engineers. I hope very much that the schools system will respond by providing enough people with suitable qualifications for those courses.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, will the noble Lord not agree that after seven years of a Conservative Government it is a disgrace that there are 1,000 places unfilled?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, all I will say is that the responsibility for education in this country is vested in local education authorities and not in central government. That is something that everyone in your Lordships' House would do well to remember.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, the noble Lord told me that reductions in university places was "another matter". It should not be just "another matter" for the Government that 10,000 places were lost between 1981 and 1983. Is this not reducing essential research and training for our manufacturing industry by reducing the number of undergraduates within the universities, and is that not the Government's responsibility?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, it is another matter because that is another question. But if the noble Lord was asserting that the places lost have a direct relation to manufacturing industry, I venture to disagree with him. If he would care to put down a Question on the subject, I am quite sure that we shall provide the answer.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, following the replies of the noble Lord, may we take it that he utterly rejects the old fashioned capitalist idea that when labour is in short supply better wages should be offered?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I believe greatly in the market principle. I am sure that wages rise to increase supply, and eventually supply will rise to fill demand.
Lord Annan: My Lords, has not the shortfall to which the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, referred in the universities been partly taken up by the vacant places in polytechnics, and is not the polytechnic level in engineering one that we badly need to improve? Will the Minister consider making representations to his right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education that more universities should be urged to go over to sandwich course degrees? It is only through sandwich course degrees that we shall get close co-operation between industry and universities.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I shall gladly do that. There are some who feel that an unsatisfactory outcome of Robbins was the conversion of many very

389
good polytechnics to universities. But we should be looking at our centres of excellence and ensuring that they conform more closely to the needs of industry and commerce and to the life of this country. But I shall convey that message to my right honourable friend.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, if the Minister believes so much in the purity of supply and demand, why is he spending £1·4 billion in this area?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, the reason is that I believe in lubricating supply and demand, and that is a very good lubricant.

"Air Transport and the Consumer"
3.14 p.m.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what action they propose to take following receipt of the report from the National Consumer Council entitled Air Transport and the Consumer.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, we have strongly welcomed this report and its support for our campaign to liberalise air services in Europe. We hope that it will be read widely by consumer groups and governments throughout Europe. For our part, we are continuing to press for further liberalisation in Europe, both bilaterally and multilaterally.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I was not sure who would be answering the Question today? It was the Department of Trade and Industry which requested the report, whereas the responsibility for civil aviation rests with the Department of Transport. Is he further aware that I say that knowing that the request was made in October 1984; and that may have been the reason?
While we all hope that the report will be widely read, we should like the Government to do something about it. May I ask the Minister whether he agrees that, while the decision reached by the European Court is of great interest, and we shall come back to it later, it has a special significance in that it arose out of a refusal by the court to allow an appeal by the French Government against M. Jacques Maillot, who is the head of Nouvelles Frontieres, which is the second largest chain in France, for the issuing of cheap fares?
Finally, is he aware that the first page of the National Consumer Council Report deals with the Treaty of Rome? Can he comment further on any action that the Government might take?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Baroness asked her Question of Her Majesty's Government and it was indeed Her Majesty's Government who replied. With regard to the judgment of the European Court yesterday, it is very
390
wide of the Question on the Order Paper. But in view of its importance I think that it would be helpful to the House if I made this comment. The judgment was long and complicated. Therefore I can give only preliminary reactions on behalf of the Government. However, the ruling generally is helpful to our efforts to secure liberalisation of air transport in Europe and it is therefore welcome. We particularly welcome the fact that the court has now made clear beyond doubt what we have said all along, that EC competition rules apply to aviation.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will the noble Earl convey to his noble friend Lord Bethell the Government's appreciation of his efforts in this matter?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I shall indeed pass on the compliments of the noble Lord to my noble friend. But we hope that we shall be able to succeed where my noble friend has not by negotiation.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, is it sufficient for the Minister merely to say that the Government welcome the report? The report covers 104 pages and has 29 recommendations, and there are six working papers covering another 134 pages. Would it not be advisable for them perhaps to issue a green paper giving full details?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the Government asked for the report. The comments and recommendations to a large extent support the Government's policy. We have therefore not considered it necessary to issue a further green paper.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: May I ask the Minister, without being referred to the usual channels, and as the Leader of the House is here, whether it would be courteous to the National Consumer Council, which has produced this enormous report after great research, if we had time for a debate, not necessarily on what the Government will do but on what the National Consumer Council has reported to the Government? Does the Minister think that he could recommend to his noble friend the Leader of the House that we might have government time to debate the report?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, with my noble friends the Leader of the House and the Chief Whip beside me I can do no more than remind them of the request of the noble Baroness.

HBMC: Finanical Management
3.18 p.m.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government, pursuant to Lord Elton's reply of 21st April [H.L. Debates, col. 1068], which referred to additional expenditure by the marketing division of the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission to cover marketing expenditure which "had not been properly

391
authorised", what changes have been made in the original budgets of the other divisions of the commission.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Elton): My Lords, the budget for the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for 1985–86 was £59 million. I understand that at the midpoint of that year the commission identified savings and underspends achieved in the normal course of business which amounted to rather less than 2 per cent. of that total. This was more than sufficient to meet the expenditure to which the noble Baroness's original Question referred.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, while I thank the noble Lord for that reply, I should like to ask him whether there has been any contraction in the other projects of the other divisions—for instance, in historic buildings or archaeology. The noble Lord in his reply said that the excess expenditure in the marketing division was £0.6 million, which represents a 50 per cent. increase over the original budget for that division. I should like to know who authorised this? Who was responsible for controlling it? Are those who were responsible for it still with the Commission?
Lord Elton: My Lords, with regard to the first supplementary question of the noble Baroness, I think that on reflection she will find the reply implicit in my first and substantive Answer. The amount of money involved—which was £600,000—was substantially less than the contingency money available to the Commission at the half-year point. The virement between different vote heads at no stage breached the maximum which requires ministerial sanction.
With regard to the second supplementary question of the noble Baroness, the difficulty arose because the money was not properly authorised. That was revealed by the audit report to which I referred in my first Answer. I can tell the noble Baroness—as I believe I have already made clear—that our own auditors will be conducting a further audit later this year.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I am sorry to press the Minister but the situation really is not satisfactory. The noble Lord has not answered the question which I put to him about who authorised this and who was responsible for this expenditure, which the noble Lord described in his Written Answer on 21st April at col. 1068 as not being,
"properly authorised or sufficiently rigorously controlled".
Moreover, if there were an underspend, and if this unfortunate excess expenditure had not taken place, am I not right in assuming that the money would have been available to be spent on other necessary matters instead of there being an overspend by the marketing division which I would certainly give the Minister credit for at no point trying to defend?
Lord Elton: My Lords, it is always true that if you spend money on one thing it is not available to be spent on another. In this case the money was from the contingency amount made available at the mid-year in the way in which I have described. As to individual
392
responsibility, that is a matter which has been looked into by the commission. I do not think that I should name in Parliament those who signed cheques, but I assure the noble Baroness that we are seized of the matter and that there will be a further departmental audit later this year.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, surely it is a question, not of who signed the cheques but of who authorised the signing of the cheques which involved expenditure which was 50 per cent. greater than the marketing budget. The noble Lord said in his earlier reply that it was not "properly authorised". Who authorised it?
Lord Elton: My Lords, when a person signs a cheque without proper authority he authorises it himself, and that was the irregularity to which I referred.

Royal Festival Hall: Foyer Space
3.21 p.m.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government why the South Bank Board decided to close the "Bookspace" literature centre in the Royal Festival Hall.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Belstead): My Lords, the South Bank Board are carrying out a full review of the foyer space in the South Bank concert halls, and are considering the relocation of "Bookspace". It is the board's intention to increase the presence of literature on the South Bank.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer and accept that a review is being carried out. However, is it not the case that "Bookspace" has been operating for only a few months, has been very successful and is the one way of bringing literature and books together in a cultural mix with the other arts on the South Bank? Will he give us further assurance that space will be made available, even if in the beginning it is on a temporary basis, so that the continuity will not be broken? Is he aware that the year I have heard mentioned is 1988? It would be a great pity if nothing were done about books or literary events until then.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the GLC asked the designated South Bank Board whether, if they did install the "Bookspace" area, they would propose to continue to use the space for literature. They were told that the South Bank Board would not so decide to do. It is, therefore, rather surprising that the GLC nonetheless went to the trouble and expense of creating something which they knew would be moved in five months' time.
The second supplementary question of the noble Baroness is perfectly understandable: the noble Baroness wants to see literature provided for. There are many plans, and I am sure that they will be proceeded with as quickly as possible.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I bear in mind and appreciate what the Minister has said. However, would he not agree that the Royal Festival Hall is the quality cultural centre of not only London but the United Kingdom, and that there are many people involved in these great activities who are somewhat apprehensive as to its future? Will the Minister give some assurance and make some statement, if not today at some time, to assuage those fears?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I can see no reason at all why anybody should be apprehensive about the future of the Festival Hall. It is part of the complex for which the South Bank Board are the ground landlords, and I have every confidence in the South Bank Board.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, would not the Minister agree that, even by its political opponents, it is generally agreed that the GLC made a great success of the improvements which they carried out at the Royal Festival Hall? Would the noble Lord also agree that the South Bank Board would be well advised to follow up or to carry on that policy, rather than to make changes for the sake of making them?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, not in this particular case. the fact of the matter is that the area which was called "Bookspace" totally blotted out the splendid view of the Thames and the London skyline, so that nobody could see them at all. Now the South Bank Board have some rather better plans. They are looking into the possibility of accommodating the Arts Council's Poetry Library on the South Bank; they are considering whether the Purcell Room could be more closely identified with literature in performance—for example, poetry readings and play readings—and they are also looking in detail at the scope for exhibitions, and other events related to literature, in the foyer area as a whole.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, what we are talking about here—
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord but I should like to take up the point about the Poetry Library. The noble Lord mentioned that the Poetry Library will be accommodated on the South Bank. Is it not the case that it has been offered the Waterloo Room, which it believes, quite rightly, is extremely inaccessible, that people just passing through that area will not visit it, and that it is looking into alternatives? Therefore, that situation has also disappointed the "Bookspace" staff and worried them about their future.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I do not think that that has very much to do with the "Bookspace" area. I said that this was one of the plans of the South Bank Board. It is being considered, and quite rightly too.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, I apologise for not allowing the noble Baroness a fair hearing. Is the Minister aware that what we are talking about as regards the "Bookspace" is an area which used to be the restaurant of the Festival Hall, with a beautiful view over the Thames—an area which the new authority intends to return to that use? Is he further
394
aware that the GLC were given full notice of that matter by the South Bank Board? Moreover, in the context of certain questions which have been answered, is he aware that those of us who are regular visitors to the Festival Hall are already heartened and encouraged by the signs of excellence and of standards which have become evident in the activities of the South Bank Board since 1st April?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, is absolutely right. The area in question was used as a restaurant, and certainly consideration is being given to returning it to restaurant use again so that people can not only eat there but also enjoy the view. I am particularly glad that the noble Lord has asked his second question, because the Government would most certainly agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, has said. We believe also that literature has its rightful prominence in the type of centre which is being developed on the South Bank
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, is it true that the restaurant to which the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, alluded is intended, as part of the plan, to be turned into a private restaurant for the use of sponsors, and its use denied to the public? If that is so, why should it be so?—because sponsors already have the use of the Hungerford Room.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I have no information on that matter. It will be a matter for the South Bank Board.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon my noble friend Lord Glenarthur will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is being made in another place on prisons.
It may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the Committee stage of the Education Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7.00 p.m. for approximately one hour and that during this adjournment the House will again be in Committee on the Museums and Galleries (Prohibition of Admission Charges) Bill.

Business of the House
The Lord President of the Council (Viscount Whitelaw): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debate on the Motion in the name of the Baroness Seear set down for 7th May, and on any amendment thereto, shall be limited to 5 hours and that Standing Order 35 and paragraphs 10 to 13 of the Rules for the Conduct of Short Debates shall apply to the debate with the substitution of "5 hours" for "2½ hours" and "25 minutes" for "20 minutes".—(Viscount Whitelaw.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Education Bill [H.L.]
3.28 p.m.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Swinton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
Clause 37 [Appraisal of performance of teachers]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 85:
Page 38, line 42, leave out from ("duties") to end of line 2 on page 39.
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 85 refers to the reserve power of appraisal which the Secretary of State is to take under Clause 37 of the Bill, which provides the opportunity, if there is no agreement between the local education authorities and the teachers' organisations or the teachers collectively on appraisal, for him to take that power for himself and to secure that there are regulations for appraisal to his own liking.
I wish to make it clear that, as was said on Second Reading, we on this side of the Committee are not opposed to the principle of appraisal. We hope, as I am sure the Government hope, that it will be possible for a voluntary agreement to be reached between the teachers' organisations and the local authorities on the appraisal that is in our view necessary, and that therefore the whole of Clause 37 will not be necessary, or will not necessarily be implemented. On the basis that the Government feel it necessary to take these reserve powers, we believe that there are two instances in which the reserve powers go too far and offend against the best interests of the teaching profession and the education service as a whole, and Amendment No. 85 is concerned with the first of those.
In subsection (1)(a) it is provided that the regulations shall apply to teachers "in discharging their duties". There can hardly be any objection to that. That is clearly what appraisal is to be about, and we do not question that. But subsection (1)(b) goes on to say that the regulations apply to teachers,
"engaging in other activities connected with the establishments at which they are employed".
That implies that these are not duties. I am conscious that there is, and has been, controversy about the definition of duties between teachers and local education authorities, and indeed with the Government, over a number of years. But one way in which it will certainly not be possible to resolve it is by saying, as the Bill as at present drafted says, that appraisal is to apply to what are in effect voluntary activities.
At this stage it seems curious that the Notes on Clauses say something that appears to me to be different from the provisions of the Bill itself. The Notes on Clauses, which are usually so helpful, say:
"The Government hope that these discussions will produce an agreed definition of duties the performance of which will then voluntarily be made subject to appraisal".
396
I cannot see in this clause any indication that these duties, or indeed any other activities, are voluntarily to be made subject to appraisal. As I read Clause 37 it says that the reserve powers will be to impose appraisal on both the duties of teachers and these other activities.
It may well be that I am reading the provision wrongly; I am no expert in drafting matters. But it appears to me that the clause does not say what the Notes on Clauses indicate, and that what is being proposed here is compulsory appraisal of voluntary activities. That seems to us to be an unnecessary provocation, an unnecessary extension of the principle of appraisal in itself, and one which we query with this amendment. On the basis of the Government reply we shall have to consider what position we take on this matter. I beg to move.
Lord Somers: It seems to me that this amendment overlooks the fact that in most schools most staff are required to do duties of some sort outside their actual written engagement, such as invigilating for examinations, being on duty for lunch, or something similar. There are many minor details. Teachers might even be asked to be present on the ground during games, or something like that. It is narrowing down a schoolmaster's activities very much to say that he may do only this, that, and the other. He should want to take part in the life of the school. That is a far better way to engender a feeling of partnership in the school and a desire to do it well.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: We should have clear in our minds the difference between a duty and a voluntary activity. The two paragraphs of the subsection very clearly make a division. The first relates to duties—and nobody can deny that if anything is to be appraised, duties should be appraised—and the second relates to activities which are not duties. Duties are obviously such things as teaching, preparing for lessons, parent meetings, staff meetings, supervision, and the like, as the noble Lord, Lord Somers, mentioned. In my view he was referring to supervision duties.
However, paragraph (b) relates to activities undertaken by teachers which they do not have to undertake. I take that to mean the voluntary activities such as the running of clubs and societies which, as I have said before in your Lordships' Chamber, are the chief joy and bright spots in a teacher's day. A teacher's day is always extremely hard working. It is often stressful and, I am afraid, quite often discouraging. But the sort of thing that he can do with children which he does not have to do, such as running a club or a society, is the bright spot in his day. This is because of the very fact that it is voluntary, and it also tends to be successful because it is also voluntary for the children.
If this becomes subject to appraisal, it becomes something that the teacher has to do because he has to think of his future and his promotion chances. As soon as he has to do it, it ceases to be voluntary. That takes the joy out of it for both him and the pupils. I feel strongly that this paragraph should not be there. If the teacher is to be appraised in regard to such activities, he must be appraised by someone who is reasonably expert in them. Suppose you have a woman teacher

397
teaching dancing. How can anyone appraise a dancing club unless they know something about dancing?
I think that teachers would fear—I know that I would have feared, as a teacher, rehearsing a play, which is what I spent most of my voluntary hours doing—that whoever came to appraise them would not know anything about the activity. This may well be a fear of teachers. I am not saying that the out-ofschool activities of teachers should not be taken any account of. They should enter into a general consideration of a teacher's quality, but not in any specific way. Therefore, it is a great mistake to introduce this as a separate paragraph, and I support the amendment.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: When the Minister replies will he throw a little light on what is going on between the teachers' organisations and ACAS at the present time? I understood that the reference to ACAS covered conditions of service and other matters in dispute between the Secretary of State and the teachers' unions. The impression I had was that this matter was part of conditions of service and was therefore within the scope of the discussions they were to have with ACAS. They have been given a few months to try to come up with something permanent, agreed, and comprehensive.
Here we are considering putting a matter of this kind into statute law. It is preposterous that Parliament should be occupied, with all its Members and expense, in dealing with a matter of this kind which elsewhere is dealt with as a matter for negotiation and agreement between staff interests, management, and those responsible for the organisation. I know of no other sector in the public service where it is necessary to have a law before you can report on people, and have some appraisal of their qualifications and their aptitude for advancement and of whether the whole organisation is efficient because of the common denominator of quality within the organisation. All this is management.
What an out-of-date set up we must have for the teaching profession and the teaching organisation if we have to have a statute law before we can decide whether or not a teacher is qualified according to some prescription or report made upon him.
The activities referred to in sub-section (1)(b) are external activities in one way. They are assumed always to be voluntary. They may not be entirely irrelevant to the general usefulness, quality and character of a teacher. In many reporting systems—I have had a great deal to do with many of them and invented one of them—outside activities and interests were not irrelevant to the assessment of aptitude and the characteristics and general fitness of an officer. We have all this in the Civil Service. We have a special set of reporting arrangements in a technical department such as the Inland Revenue. We have different reporting forms and systems for management as distinct from other classes and I should expect the form to be prescribed in due course would be different according to the classification of the people being reported on.
I do not object to anybody being reported upon who was engaged in activities for which they were in some degree accountable, especially in the public service.
398
We are all reported upon. Probably the least reported upon people are Members of this chamber. They can get by with anything or nothing. We have no constituents to say how good or ill we are. We might occasionally have a favourable or unfavourable comment in the press or in somebody's speeches against which we have no appeal, but we are not regarded as fitted for promotion by some qualities we display here that are reported upon in any formal way.
It is better to have this appraisal done by agreement so that people accept the structure upon which their qualifications are to be judged. Management is interested because it has to do the invidious job in many cases of making an appraisal of those who are serving with them or under them. In any agreed scheme I should not expect these other activities mentioned in the clause to which this amendment relates to be ruled out entirely. However, if one is asked to put them in, for the Secretary of State to have statutory powers to ask for these items to be included in the report made on teachers, one bridles against it. What are we coming to? We shall soon have to have statutory authority to allow teachers to use lipstick and to make themselves presentable. Many of them are not! But we are making ourselves look ridiculous. I hope that the Secretary of State will have enough gumption—he has plenty surely by this time—to leave this clause out of the Bill altogether, when we come to it, and let this take its proper place in the discussions that are now going on. He can see what he can do to incorporate this in a complete system of new pay and conditions of teachers and get some kind of harmony restored in this outfit. He will not get this while the teachers are in their present state of mind. He will not get this while management is in its present state of mind. This is a dead duck in this Bill. We are wasting time on it. It is about time that we submitted ourselves to an efficiency test and said, "This is rubbish, get rid of it!"
Baroness Phillips: I am delighted to follow my noble friend in his theme. Of all the time-wasting and expensive Bills that we have ever been presented with, this has to take the cake. At a time when the teachers are trying to get a little extra salary we are to spend money on ridiculous things like training governors.
However, when it is said that there is not already an appraisal of teachers I feel that shows a lack of information. What is the county inspectorate doing? What are Her Majesty's Inspectors doing? They are constantly going round schools, appraising teachers and submitting reports. If this is now to be extended to out-of-school activities—and I seem to recall that I spent a lot of time taking primary school children to pantomimes and to sports grounds—then I am not sure whether that would have been in my favour or would have been described as a subversive activity which perhaps would have gone against me in an appraisal.
I support everything that my noble friend has said. The teachers are totally demoralised and here we sit discussing this kind of nonsense when we should leave it to the profession to do their job. No other profession has been interfered with as much as the teachers. For Heaven's sake, let them get on with the job.
3.45 p.m.
The Earl of Swinton: My noble friend Lady Young made clear on Second Reading that the Government hope that the negotiations now taking place will make sufficient progress to allow an early start to the practical field work which the Government have long wanted to launch. We do not expect the talks themselves to lay down an exact working model, but we hope progress will be made. We have no national blueprint to impose.
I think that I can answer the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby. ACAS is indeed discussing conditions, duties and appraisals. In fact, four working parties are now sitting and are, I understand, to report in mid June. Like the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, the Government wish them every success. We hope that this is the way to do it. Of course, this is the way to do it; but surely it is not provocative—and this is only an enabling power—for this to be put in the Bill in case they do not come up with a satisfactory solution. After all, this was first mooted by my right honourable 'friend in October 1984 and it appeared in the March 1985 White Paper Better Schools. Contrary to what the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, said, the principle of appraisal is accepted on all sides. I cannot see any provocation in moving it in this Bill just in case it has to be used as an enabling power. As I said, this amendment attempts to pre-empt the outcome of the current talks. If the talks go well, we can expect agreement on:
"a clear definition of the contractual duties and responsibilities of teachers".
These duties should form the core of the appraisal scheme.
In addition, the intention is that other activities, such as running: clubs, societies, weekend activities, and so on, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Walston, and the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie of Dundee, should be appraised. The Government firmly believe that many activities which teachers are not contracted to undertake are part of a teacher's overall contribution to the life of the school and there should be scope in the appraisal process for recognising that contribution.
The amendment would effectively deny that teachers make a considerable professional commitment to the well-being of our schools through those activities. If only contractual duties are appraised, the extra commitment made by teachers who run a multitude of other activities will be ignored. That cannot be right. Here I take up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie of Dundee, and also the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips: the idea of this appraisal would be to the advantage of the teachers. After all, if a teacher spends his or her lunchtime running a chess club or taking the children out on walks, it is surely right in the appraisal that these things should be brought to light, and this would go down on the teacher's very good record.
Baroness Phillips: This happens already.
The Earl of Swinton: I should not reply, as the noble Baroness speaks from a sedentary position; but the whole idea is that from now on this should be the situation. She also asked what is the point when
400
already confidential reports are made by authorities and appraisals are carried out. I am delighted to say to the noble Baroness that this was the very first question I asked when I went to be briefed about this. Having served for many years on a local education authority I said just what the noble Baroness said—one gets confidential reports. The point of the confidential reports made now is that they are made behind the teacher's back by somebody and as often as not the teacher has no right to find out what is in them or to question them. This will make it clear that the teacher has a right to find out what is put in.
Surely if the teacher is doing something extra above the call of duty in the school and taking part in school activities at lunchtimes, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie of Dundee, said, this is rewarding, the idea is not that they should have to do it but if they do it and do it voluntarily this should, as it were, be a Brownie point to them. I think that is absolutely fair. It may be argued that the inclusion of non-contractual activities in the appraisal process is unfair to those teachers who are highly competent in the classroom but simply cannot afford the time for additional activities. The Government firmly believe that classroom effectiveness is the prime test of a teacher's success. But they also believe that other factors—for example, relations with parents, pupils and the local community—add to classroom teaching to define the teacher's total contribution to the school. The weighting given to non-classroom factors will always, and rightly, be less than that given to classroom teaching. But if a teacher is able and willing to help with other useful activities, it seems right that that contribution should be formally recognised. It is possible, as I said to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, that the current talks will not produce:
"a clear definition of the contractual duties and responsibilities of teachers".
If, unfortunately, there should fail to be agreement between the employers and the unions on this issue, the Government would then expect LEAs to appraise these duties which the employers believe to fall within the express or implied terms of their contracts of employment with teachers—together with those other activities by which teachers contribute to the full life of the school.
I hope this explanation helps remove any concerns that this clause might be used in some way to "punish" teachers who do not take part in activities other than duties. This is not the case. The reverse is the case. The Government want to see an appraisal system which is not mechanically restricted to duties but is flexible enough to recognise the extra professional commitment through which teachers contribute to the vitality of schools. Teachers themselves expect that contribution to be recognised, and so it should be. If they are doing things beyond what is laid down for them, it is only right, as I have said, that they should benefit from that. This amendment would destroy that flexibility and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey—and I know that he is a reasonable person—will feel having heard that explanation, that he is able to withdraw this amendment.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: Before my noble friend sits down, I wonder whether he can clarify something

401
for me. If the appraisal goes against the teacher then what happens?
The Earl of Swinton: The teacher will be able to meet the people who are appraising him and will be able to discuss the appraisal and make very clear what he thinks about it. That is something which does not happen at this time.
Lord Alexander of Potterhill: I wonder if the noble Earl the Minister can help me on a very small point. Who is to supervise the activities of the teachers who supervise the better part of 100,000 children at Wembley attending the final of the Schoolboys' International? Would that be a function of the Secretary of State?
The Earl of Swinton: I think that the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, whom I very much respect, is getting somewhat carried away here. This is not laying down what teachers must or must not do. This is saying that, if teachers do things which are bringing extra credit to them and to the schools in helping the children, that should be recognised as such in their appraisal.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: As the Minister says, I am a reasonable man. I am also noted for my devout adherence to the proprieties of the Committee. I spoke only about the amendment and not about the wider issues which have been raised in debate. I am bound to say that the contributions of my noble friends and others have convinced me, if I needed convincing, that the issue is more serious than what is covered by this amendment, and the reply from the noble Earl gives me much greater concern about what is in the mind of the Secretary of State and whether this is the right way to go about it.
The Minister has indicated the kind of weighting—and he used the word himself—which will be given to classroom activities as opposed to other activities. Clearly, the Government have in mind some sort of balance between classroom duties and other activities. There has been a good deal of discussion about what are duties and what are not duties and, clearly, the Government have in their mind some definition—and not just the definition which may be arrived at by the ACAS negotiations—of what are duties and what are not duties.
The Minister replied to the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, in terms of the use to which appraisal is to be put. That is the absolutely fundamental question. Clearly, the Government have in their mind some formula for the use to which these appraisals are to be put. What we are being asked to give to the Secretary of State here is a blank cheque on appraisal. There is no indication of who should do the appraisal. There is no indication of what the objectives of the appraisal shall be; there is no indication of the range of activities which the appraisal will cover, other than that it can be totally all-embracing. There is no indication of whether the appraisal is to be used only to the benefit of teachers in order to encourage good teaching and to encourage professional development among teachers. whether it should be used actually for rewarding teachers—and there are plenty of arguments on both sides of that issue—or whether it should be used for
402
punishing or ultimately removing bad teachers. Again, there are arguments on both sides of that issue.
The more one thinks about the seriousness of the appraisal issues and the more one looks at the description which is made of it in Better Schools and the lack of any precision in this section of the Bill, the more sceptical one has to be about the wisdom of including this clause at all in the Bill as it stands. Before making up my mind finally on what to do, I must ask the noble Earl to respond to the particular question that I asked him about the wording of the Notes on Clauses and how that is reflected in the clause itself. The Notes on Clauses, I remind the Committee, say:
"performance of which will then voluntarily be made subject to appraisal".
I ask the noble Earl directly, where in the text of the Bill is that voluntary aspect of appraisal made?
The Earl of Swinton: The Notes on Clauses refer to the ACAS talks which are going on and where the Government fervently hope that a voluntary agreement will come out. If that is reached then the power will not be used.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I agree with that. That is certainly what is said in the sentence that I read out earlier. But does that mean that every aspect of a teacher's working life, or even, to some extent, leisure life, is going to be controlled compulsorily by appraisal? The whole point about this clause is that this is provision for compulsory appraisal. What may be agreed voluntarily by negotiation is a very different thing from what can reasonably be imposed by the Secretary of State on the basis of statute.
I am afraid that this debate has raised wider issues than those in the amendment itself but the amendment is a boiling down of one of the most important issues on appraisal and I do not believe that it is one which this Committee ought now to pass on from without expressing a decision.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 85) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 82: Not-Contents, 103.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Alexander of Potterhill, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Amherst, E.

Ezra, L.

Ampthill, L.

Foot, L.

Ardwick, L.

Gallacher, L.

Aylestone, L.

Galpern, L.

Banks, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Bernstein, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Birk, B.

Grey, E.

Bottomley, L.

Hampton, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Caradon, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Jeger, B.

Crawshaw of Aintree, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Cudlipp, L.

John-Mackie, L.

David, B.

Kennet, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Diamond, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Listowel, E.

403

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Sainsbury, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Serota, B.

Lockwood, B.

Shepherd, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Silkin of Dulwich, L.

MacLeod of Fuinary, L.

Stallard, L.

McNair, L.

Stedman, B.

Mais, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Mellish, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Mishcon, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Molloy, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Nicol, B.

Tordoff, L.

Oram, L.

Underhill, L.

Phillips, B.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Wells-Pestell, L.

Whaddon, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

White, B.

Rea, L.

Wigoder, L.

Rhodes, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L. [Teller.]

Willis, L.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Rochester, L.

Winterbottom, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Hooper, B.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Belstead, L.

Ilchester, E.

Bessborough, E.

Kinnaird, L.

Blake, L.

Kitchener, E.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Layton, L.

Broxbourne, L.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Buckmaster, V.

McFadzean, L.

Butterworth, L.

Mancroft, L.

Caithness, E.

Marley, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Merrivale, L.

Cathcart, E.

Mersey, V.

Coleraine, L.

Mottistone, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Cox, B.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Craigavon, V.

O'Hagan, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Orkney, E.

Davidson, V.

Penrhyn, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Denning, L.

Porritt, L.

Digby, L.

Portland, D.

Dundee, E.

Reilly, L.

Effingham, E.

Renwick, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Rodney, L.

Elles, B.

Romney, E.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

St. Davids, V.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Sandford, L.

Elton, L.

Sandys, L.

Faithfull, B.

Sempill, Ly.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Shannon, E.

Ferrers, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Forester, L.

Somers, L.

Fortescue, E.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Gainford, L.

Sudeley, L.

Gainsborough, E.

Swinton, E.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Terrington, L.

Gisborough, L.

Teviot, L.

Glanusk, L.

Thurlow, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Trumpington, B.

Gridley, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Vickers, B.

Vivian, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Hayter, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Henley, L.

Windlesham, L.

Hives, L.

Young, B.

Hood, V.

Young of Graffham, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
The Earl of Swinton: I think this might be a convenient moment to take the Statement. I beg to move that the House be now resumed.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

The Prisons: Disturbances
4.6 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Glenarthur): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement on prisons which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. The Statement is as follows:
"Mr. Speaker, as I undertook in the House last night, I will with permission make a further Statement on the situation in the prisons.
"I reported to the House last night on events at Lewes and Northeye prisons. Disruption continued there during the night but the situation has now been brought under control, though at both establishments, and particularly at Northeye, there has been extensive damage to buildings. Police intervention was necessary at Bristol to regain control of one wing of the prison, and at Erlestoke Youth Custody Centre some 40 trainees made a mass breakout: some 16 are still at large. The other more serious incident was at Wymott, where there was a major disturbance but where staff were gradually able to regain control. In addition, a number of lesser incidents took place at 12 other prison establishments.
"The situation in all establishments has now been brought back under control. I want to take this opportunity to pay public tribute to hard-pressed prison governors, those prison staff who remained at their posts and the members of the police and fire services who have helped to restore the situation.
"There will need to be an inquiry into these events. The form and scope of this will have to be compatible with any police investigation into alleged offences, and I will keep the House informed.
"I have taken immediate steps to try to ensure that, now order has been restored, it can continue to be preserved. Prison governors are in touch with their local chief officers of police about the situation in their establishments. After consultations with me, the acting President of the Association of Chief Police Officers has opened the National Information Centre at New Scotland Yard to collate and disseminate information relating to the police involvement in the current prisons dispute. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence has ordered preparations in case military camps are needed to house prisoners as a result of the destruction of prison accommodation. Arrangements have been made to ensure a co-ordinated response by all government departments to the present difficult situation.

405
"Although some of the violent action by prisoners may have been imitative, there is little doubt that the occasion for it was the overtime ban instituted by the National Executive Committee of the Prison Officers Association as part of its dispute with the Prison Department about manning levels. This both increased the prospect of trouble in the prisons and reduced the resources available to deal with it. I believe that not only the public but many members of the prison service, including members of the Prison Officers Association, will have been appalled by the events of the last 24 hours.
"I therefore welcome the decision of the National Executive Committee of the POA to suspend its current industrial action to allow talks at the Home Office to take place. The POA ask for a reciprocal gesture, asking us to allow staff to work normally and lift threats of suspension. I see no difficulty about this: staff temporarily relieved from duty, that is to say suspended, can lift their own suspension by agreeing to work normally. We cannot start substantive negotiations until the threat of industrial action has been removed. But I have invited the NEC to discussion at the department with a view to the simultaneous calling off of the industrial action and the institution of discussion about the agenda for the future which I set out in my letter of 22nd April to the POA General Secretary. The House will recall that this agenda involved: a rapid settlement of this year's pay claim, including the outstanding question of a reduction in the working week for prison officers; the immediate payment of tax compensation on housing allowance for 1985–86; bringing forward as fast as possible work on new shift systems and pay arrangements for detailed discussion with the POA, with a view to the new arrangements being in place by April 1987.
"I very much hope that the POA NEC will respond positively and constructively to this package and that the talks I have set in hand will find a way through present difficulties. The House may be assured that I shall be doing everything I can to ensure that the control that has been regained in our prisons is maintained and that a constructive way forward is found from this destructive dispute."
My Lords, that concludes the text of the Statement.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord for repeating the Statement of the Home Secretary. When we discussed this matter two days ago I ventured to say that we were facing a grave situation in the nation's affairs approaching a national emergency. I fear that the events of last night have confirmed that anxiety up to the hilt. The whole country will have been appalled at the savagery of the events, at their widespread nature and at the anarchy which has prevailed in the prisons.
We deplore and we condemn the violence. What we need, and what I think the nation demands now, is an early resolution of the dispute. As the Home Secretary's Statement has indicated, the Prison Officers Association has today taken a crucial and constructive step towards a truce (which was the phrase I used two days ago) by suspending industrial action. It is therefore essential now for the Home Secretary to respond by taking further steps to
406
facilitate discussions with the Prison Officers Association national executive which could resolve this dispute. Accordingly, I suggest that the Home Secretary instructs his officials to get in touch as soon as possible with the national executive committee of the Prison Officers Association so that they can discuss together the basis for a possible agenda for talks. There is still a good deal of ground to cover.
The House will be aware that the industrial action that has taken place followed a ballot of the members of the association which overwhelmingly supported industrial action. However, an agreement for the agenda as to talks and their resumption could well ease the way for the process that will end this dispute. I hope that the Home Secretary will take action on those lines so that this grave threat to the security of the country and of the people themselves may be met by negotiation—by give and take on each side—in order to avoid a renewal of last night's arson and anarchy. A resumption of that would be intolerable for the nation to endure.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, in thanking the noble Lord for repeating the Home Secretary's Statement in the House of Commons, may I ask him whether he agrees that last night's wretched events have undoubtedly done a great deal of damage to the self-confidence and reputation of the British prison service? Can I ask him whether, notwithstanding that, he will pass on to the many dedicated prison governors and staff who did not abandon their positions last evening our congratulations, and I am sure I speak for many in all parts of the House? Without them, people would have lost their lives last night, and it is right that the courageous men who stayed at their posts should have public tribute paid to them. I hope that these words will be passed to the prison service.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord one or two questions specifically? There is a suggestion of an unconfirmed report of the death of two inmates at Northeye. If the Minister will forgive my saying so, that is rather a strange statement. Have bodies been discovered? If the prison department now has total possession of Northeye prison, why should there be any doubt about this? No doubt there is an explanation, and I am sure we should like to have it.
Can the noble Lord also say what form of inquiry the Home Secretary is considering setting up into these events? Very naturally, he has said that this cannot get in the way of the police inquiries which are obviously going to have to take place. But is it thought that a member of the judiciary will be involved? I think it would be helpful if he could give us a preliminary indication of what is to be done.
Lastly, may I put this to him again? Does he agree that the background to this problem is twofold? First, there is an urgent need, which I think is recognised by all who care about the reputation of the prison service, to support the position of governors in prison department establishments. We just cannot tolerate a situation where we have this form of anarchy year after year; the often unpublicised anarchy which has taken

407
place. If we are to get some benefit out of the dismal events of last evening, it is critical that the position of governors should be enhanced.
Secondly, does the Minister agree that these very sad events take place in the context of gross overcrowding throughout the prison system? That is emphasised by the fact that military camps may have to be used because of the loss of one prison department establishment; namely, Northeye. Will he consider with his right honourable friend whether it is not necessary once again to look at the provisions of the executive release scheme? The House has discussed this matter on a number of occasions, but unless there is some relief to this huge problem of prison overcrowding, I am afraid there will always be a risk of violence in our prisons.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am grateful to both the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, and the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, for their remarks in expressing horror and condemnation of the violence which took place last night. I am sure that is something which we all feel; and, like both noble Lords, I and my right honourable friend the Home Secretary hope that we can achieve an early resolution of the problems which have arisen.
The Statement made plain the Home Secretary's proposals for talks with the national executive committee of the Prison Officers Association. I hope that the formulation which is spelt out in the Statement is one which covers the suggestions made by the noble and learned Lord that my right honourable friend should respond in the way that has been suggested to facilitate discussions. That is what is suggested in the Statement and that is what will go ahead.
I share entirely the views of both noble Lords when they suggest that any resumption of activities of the type we saw last night would be intolerable not just for the prison service but also for the public. I can say to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, that I shall of course pass on the congratulations of the House to all those who stayed at their posts and to the governors, who, I can state from experience, having been in the operations room until about two o'clock this morning, were performing a most amazing job in juggling the necessary components of the prison service and the police to meet the need as it arose. I shall do what the noble Lord suggested.
On the suggestion that there may have been a death at Northeye, it has been rumoured—the rumour came from prisoners—that two inmates had died there. I am glad to be able to report that there is no substance in those allegations. The debris of the prison has been sifted and no bodies have been found.
The noble Lord asked whether I could give him any further information about the nature of the inquiry which my right honourable friend has proposed; I cannot at the moment. I hope that the noble Lord will accept the paragraph in the Statement which dealt with the matter. As my right honourable friend has suggested, the inquiry will have to be compatible with any police inquiries into alleged offences. He will of course keep the other place informed and I shall no doubt have the opportunity to keep your Lordships informed.
408
I entirely agree with the noble Lord that support for governors is essential. Governing a prison is no easy task. There are many competing claims and difficulties facing governors and they therefore need the support of everybody working in the prisons, and people outside, in order to carry out the difficult task that they face, particularly at a time of increasing costs, and, as the noble Lord mentioned, of overcrowding which in some prisons, as he is aware, is acute.
On that matter it must be said again that we have embarked on a huge prison building programme. Over the next few years 16 prisons are to be built. That will be no mean feat. When it is done it will largely meet the concerns which the noble Lord expressed. It comes of course within the whole criminal justice field and there are other matters which must also be looked at. That is a significant and imaginative project which has been taken forward and is gathering speed.
The subject of executive release was raised by the noble Lord the other day, I think. The early release power contained in Section 32 of the Criminal Justice Act 1982 is intended for use only in extreme circumstances. I do not believe that those extreme circumstances have yet been reached. It is important to bear in mind that only a dozen or so prisons out of about 125 were affected last night. It speaks volumes for those concerned in the other prisons that nothing more serious happened. Nevertheless, my right honourable friend has said that he is not prepared to use that early release power except in extreme circumstances.
I believe that I have covered most of the points raised by noble Lords opposite.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether, apart from the 16 young offenders whom he mentioned had escaped from the Wiltshire centre, in the course of those horrible events any other prisoners, and if so how many, have escaped? Can he also confirm, in the light of the better news that he has given us today, whether the normal working of the criminal courts has been resumed?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the latest information I have is that 16 prisoners from Erlestoke are thought to be still at large and 10 prisoners from Northeye are similarly presumed to be at large. Those are the only prisoners at large I know of. With regard to the courts, my right honourable friend issued instructions to the courts yesterday in the form of a circular which I announced to your Lordships the other day. It is too early to say whether that should be withdrawn.
Lord Somers: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Lord one question. Nobody can deny that the work of a prison officer is highly skilled and demands a long training and, let us face it, considerable courage. Can he say what steps, if any, the Government are taking to draw more young people into the service, because I understand that one of the great difficulties has been due to understaffing in the prisons?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that the task of a prison officer is a difficult, dirty and often dangerous one. Nevertheless, many of those who work in prisons are extremely highly motivated

409
and do a great deal for the benefit of the prisoners. Current plans are to recruit at least 1,200 prison officers during the present financial year. As I said the other day, between 1979 and 1985 the number of prison officers rose by 18 per cent. to nearly 19,000 while the prison population rose by only 12 per cent.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, will the noble Lord tell the House how far existing prison officers' salaries compare with equivalent grades in the police force? If that information is not immediately available, will he let me have it in writing?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I do not have a direct comparison with me. I shall let the noble Lord have details in writing. The average earnings of prison officers is in the region of £15,000 a year.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, bearing in mind that the level of overtime has been and is an emotive issue, does the noble Lord the Minister now appreciate that the working of overtime is called for wholly in the interests of the prison service and that hitherto prison officers have worked overtime to avoid the kind of situation that occurred yesterday? Now that the prospects of talks has emerged, does the noble Lord the Minister accept that prison officers recognise their great responsibility to the service, prisoners, the public and their members and that there must be a successful outcome to the talks? I wish the Home Secretary and the prison officers a fair and honourable resolution acceptable to both parties.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I note what the noble Lord says about overtime, but I am sure he will realise that the amount that is being worked to achieve an average figure of about 16½ hours of overtime a week must in many cases lead to excessive amounts of overtime. I must say that while it is important that one's response to these issues should be measured, there are many examples, of which the noble Lord will be aware, which lead to inflexibilities in the system and to a promotion of overtime. That is why it is suggested that we discuss the package set out in my right honourable friend's letter of 22nd April. I hope that what has been said in the Statement today will go some way towards that.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, has the Prison Officers Association made any claims or set of demands that can be put on the record so that the public may understand what the dispute is about? If we are to resolve it, is it not a good idea to know what it is about? Although I have followed all the events, I have great difficulty in knowing what the row is about and what justifies the action. The public must be as uninformed as the rest of us. What is the reality of the dispute?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, there is, I suppose, a fairly substantial history to what has arisen over the past few weeks. The Prison Officers Association says that it is concerned about the maintenance of safe manning levels and regimes. It seeks the right in negotiations to determine what those manning levels should be. My right honourable friend and I are as concerned as the POA about the safety of prison
410
officers and their professional standards, and we have repeatedly made clear that management is ready to consult the POA about manning levels. But I cannot concede that the union has a right to determine those levels. In effect, that would give the union and not Parliament the right to set the budget for the prison service.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I rise from these Back-Benches for a reason that the House will know, by virtue of the fact that I have disclosed an interest in that my firm acts as legal advisers to the Prison Officers Association. I think we all welcome the Minister's Statement, as repeated in this House, and the words of wisdom that fell from my noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones. May I suggest, in view of the fact that discussions are to take place, that further questions of the nature of the last two are not very helpful? Could we therefore proceed to the next business?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for what I think was a suggestion that, at a time when emotions run fairly high and considerable damage has been done, it is not sensible to raise the temperature any further than it has already been raised. I am grateful to him for suggesting that.

Housing and Planning Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Education Bill [H.L.]
4.32 p.m.
House again in Committee on Clause 37.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 86:
Page 39, line 3, leave out ("requirements as may be prescribed") and insert ("arrangements as they may determine")
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I acknowledge the decision of the Committee in relation to the previous amendment. I also acknowledge that it is clearly the Committee's view that Clause 37, however defective it might be in the eyes of some of us in practice, ought to be a part of the Bill. I want to put to the Committee the case that the provisions which are made in line 3 of page 39 are an unnecessary, as well as an overbearing, requirement.
The Bill proposes that the appraisal which is to be established under the conditions of this clause shall be,
"in accordance with such requirements as may be prescribed",
and it is clear from this that the prescription shall be by the Secretary of State. Even if one were to accept in full the argument that there has to be some sort of ultimate sanction for the Secretary of State to impose appraisal, if agreement has not been reached—and I repeat that we all share the wish that agreement should be reached and that this clause should not necessarily be brought into effect—it is a different thing to suggest that the content of the appraisal shall itself be determined by the Secretary of State.
I want to suggest to the Committee that appraisal is a matter fundamentally between the teachers themselves, collectively and individually, and their employers, the local education authorities, and that therefore, whatever the original impetus may have been for an imposed scheme of appraisal, surely its implementation and the arrangements for its implementation should be left to the teachers themselves and to their employers. That is what this amendment seeks to provide.
It seems to me that the possibility of conflict and resentment from a scheme which is imposed both on employers and on teachers is far too great a risk for the Government to sustain, and I confess I am surprised that the Government should seek to add this additional burden on to their own appraisal scheme. None of us wants it. It is accepted that it is the wish of the Committee that it should happen, but surely it would be much more effective if, having been imposed, the requirements should be those of the local education authority rather than of the Secretary of State.
I do not see how it can be argued that the local education authorities are unfit to make these arrangements and to lay down the requirements for an appraisal scheme themselves. After all, as was said on a number of occasions on Second Reading, appraisal is not a new thing. Appraisal has been in existence as long as there has been a teaching profession. It may have been informal, it may have taken all sorts of different forms, but the appraisal of teachers as a basis for promotion, as a basis for continued employment, as a basis for the career and professional development of teachers, is something which has been part of the teaching profession ever since the very beginning. The noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Potterhill, said this very effectively in his speech on Second Reading.
Indeed, when one turns to the role of Her Majesty's Inspectors it could be argued that the corps of Her Majesty's Inspectors actually predates an effective national education department, and that the original purpose of the Board of Education was to receive the reports of Her Majesty's Inspector rather than any other purpose. That, after all, is one form of collective appraisal of the work of teachers in the schools. To that extent, surely it is a very considerable break from tradition to say that the appraisal scheme which is necessary, which we all agree to be necessary, however little we agree about how it shall be achieved, shall itself in its operation and in the arrangements for it be under the direct control of the Secretary of State.
I believe that this is not an amendment that is at all in conflict with the decision of the Committee on the preceding amendment. I believe that it is an amendment which ought to commend itself to the Government in self-defence, if for nothing else, against a charge of being overbearing, which I am sure they would not wish to be levied and, I am equally sure, they would not wish to have sustained against them. I very much hope that the Government will see the rationale of this amendment and find ways of accepting at least its spirit, if not the actual wording. I beg to move.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: I must re-emphasise my view that this clause has no suitable part of this Bill
412
at the present time. My difficulty on this amendment is different from that in relation to the previous one, but I want to examine for a moment or two just how difficult it is to ask the Committee to accept the version in the clause and (at the moment equally as difficult, so far as I am concerned) to accept the amendment as making any contribution to resolving the dilemma. I think we want to know to what use these appraisals will be put. Without that, we really do not know what form they should take or whether they should be gone into in greater detail in the statute, if that is where we have to deal with the matter, so that we know exactly what we are doing.
To the question, "To what use are these appraisals to be put?", we can only turn to subsection (2) of Clause 37, which is in general terms of jargon of the statute law, saying that they are for such purposes as may be prescribed. However, in looking at appraisals it matters a great deal to know for what purpose they are going to be used. That indeed is the root of much suspicion by staffs when they are asked to submit to a reporting system. Who is going to see the reports? To what use are they going to be put? Are they confidential? Where can the reports go for other people to see when members of staff are seeking other employment?
If the Secretary of State wants to arrive at some overall assessment of the quality of the teaching profession and to know into what classifications of efficiency, ability and potential for promotion they fall, he will want a common form of appraisal throughout the teaching service. He cannot manage without it. It would be a nonsense to a scheme of that kind to ask the local education authorities to formulate their own appraisal system because they could all be different. An authority would formulate one for itself for internal purposes without necessarily having regard to the use to which the Secretary of State might wish to put it.
There are half a million civil servants—more of them indeed than teachers. There are 75,000 civil servants in the Inland Revenue. We formulate for them a reporting system of general application so that at any time the administration can say what sort of staff it has; it can say what is the standard of recruitment: and it can look at this from the point of view of what pay they ought to have. Is this kind of concept—the use of the appraisal system—going to form any part of what the Secretary of State wants to do; or is this purely a local affair?
If it is a local affair for the information of the local education authority—something that it ought to do as a matter of internal discipline—let local education authorities formulate their own appraisal system. But if the Secretary of State wants this for a wider purpose—and I rather suspect he does; I certainly should if I were in his position—he must have the appraisal conducted on a common form related to the different classes and grades to which the appraisal system is to apply so that the different classifications would have their standard form of appraisal. That is what I think the Secretary of State has in mind.
If that were so, he would negotiate the system through the Whitley Council—that is, if there was one, but there is not. How sad it is that teachers are so bereft of sensible negotiating machinery. He would have to

413
negotiate it with the teachers unions centrally and get it agreed for application to the teaching profession as a whole for all that he wished to bring within the scope of this appraisal system. That is how it should be done.
Then the appraisal would take place within the machinery of the local education authorities, which would be responsible for looking after the work being done, gathering the appraisals together, making whatever summaries they wish, supplying information to the Secretary of State and so on. But we do not know whether what I am offering as a conjectural basis for this appraisal system is what the Secretary of State has in mind. All we know is this jumble here on page 39. It may mean anything. If one is a teacher, one cannot be entirely free of anxieties in the absence of more information as to the purposes to which the provision might be put.
Therefore I am bothered about this. I am bothered about the clause and I am bothered about the amendment. When it says,
"such requirements as may be prescribed",
presumably the statute law intends the Secretary of State to prescribe them. If not, the whole situation is different from the one I have described. Can we please know what is in the mind of the Government?
4.45 p.m.
The noble Earl the Minister said a moment or two ago that this is only an enabling clause. When enabling clauses offer the hope that the Minister is going to do something that you like and want him to do, then you are all behind enabling clauses. But if the enabling clause is almost a covert threat that he is going to do something that you do not like but it is going to be imposed, you have a very different attitude.
We are so lacking in information that we cannot do this job intelligently. I beg of the Minister who has all that documentation in front of him to disclose the mind of the Government on the nature and use of the system that this clause is intended to bring into existence. We may then be able to get on, although I think the more sensible course would be, before we are asked to put the provision into the form of statute law, to discuss it with those who will be the workforce within the system, the management who will administer it and the Secretary of State who is going to use it. Until that is made clearer, the Government should not ask us to pass anything on Clause 37.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: I should like to speak for a moment or two about the difficulty that will be involved in appraisal in a scheme any more structured than that which exists already. It is going to be very expensive. We are not talking about that today but I mention it in passing. Extra staff will be needed as well as a great deal of extra computerisation, filing and goodness knows what else.
It will also be difficult for this reason. One has to bear in mind that teachers are not salesmen. Over the past year I feel that there has been a tendency to regard them as such. I want to quote to the Committee a few words from the interesting and thorough survey of appraisal methods that was undertaken by the Suffolk
414
Education Authority. The last words of the introduction are:
"To make or to help make a teacher more effective in the iob must take account of the complexity of the task of teaching, it must take account of the fact that there is and will continue to be a spectrum of teacher competence"—
in plain English, that means that there will be good teachers and less good teachers—
"that much of what a teacher does and achieves cannot be measured and that some of his work indeed does not bear immediate fruit".
Those things should be said about the work that the teachers do.
I should also like to say that this seems an unfortunate moment for legislation about appraisal. I say this for two reasons. The first is the low state of teacher morale at present and the implied threat, to which the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, referred, that teachers may feel is implicit in this clause. Secondly, negotiations are taking place at this moment with ACAS which involve the teachers and it may be advisable to wait for the issue of these.
I should like to say a few words about teacher morale. The education service has been under attack for a long time. I noticed an instance of that this afternoon. Noble Lords may not have been particularly aware of it, but when a Question came up earlier about skilled workers I heard murmurs from one or two places in the Chamber about it being the teachers' fault. There has been a great deal of this about in recent months and teachers are sensitive to it. They are very aware of it. They feel that their professional competence is being challenged. There is a lot of talk about bad teachers, poor exam results, children leaving school half educated and so on. The profession has been under attack. Of course there are bad teachers, but there are bad doctors, bad lawyers and bad parliamentarians.
The teachers have been at the receiving end of a great deal of veiled criticism of this sort for a long time past, with the result that to the poor pay that they receive and the implied low esteem of society has been added the "incompetent teachers!" cry. I feel that the Secretary of State has forgotten that a pat on the back is worth two raps on the knuckles. I do not think that is a well known proverb, as I made it up this afternoon.
Perhaps I may add a few further words about appraisal. Teachers are told that it is about career guidance, professional development and in-service training and that it is all in their interests: but that is not what teachers think it is about. If one speaks to them it is apparent that their view is much more negative. They think it is about awards and punishments. They think that it is about being awarded with merit pay or accelerated promotion, or punished with decelerated promotion, disciplinary action of some sort and ultimate dismissal.
Teachers feel threatened. I fear that, owing to the bad relationship which they have with the Secretary of State at the moment, this clause on the Secretary of State's enabling power is unfortunate. For those reasons we feel that arrangements should be left in the hands of the local education authorities, which will have to operate any such scheme, and indeed are doing so, in an amorphous way. We feel that it is more sensible and more reassuring to teachers; and nothing could be more important at the moment than for

415
teachers to be reassured. Therefore, I join with the noble Lords, Lord McIntosh and Lord Irving of Dartford, in supporting this amendment.
Baroness Phillips: I should like to take this opportunity, following my noble friend and following what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, to speak about this mysterious clause. One learns, and my short exercise in government taught me always to beware of that part of a Bill called "Miscellaneous". It always contains the most contentious clauses as far as I can see.
Under the heading Financial effects of the bill, which I always look at first, it states:
"Clause 37 is an enabling power and no costs are consequent on its enactment".
That is very good to know.
"If and when a teacher appraisal scheme comes into being there will be costs at the local authority level, partly for administration"—
and this is the part to note—
"but mostly in respect of teacher time used in preparing for and operating the scheme".
Now we know that it is the teachers who will appraise the teachers. At least we have moved one step further. That makes it all the more difficult to operate and all the more reason why people will feel that there will be some discrimination against someone.
We all know the criticism that is accorded the doctors' complaints board because, it is said, doctors are complained about to other doctors, and that is not desirable. Here we shall have the teachers appraising other teachers, if we can believe the explanation of this clause.
I should like to endorse what has been said. The teachers see it as some criticism of their work, whatever way one looks at it. As I have said, they are already reported on quite enough. At the moment it would not matter how good the appraisal was of a teacher; the reason why they are employed is that they are coming in at the earliest part of the scale and because they are the cheapest. Those are the plain facts. That is because so much money has been taken from the local education authorities.
Lord Alexander of Potterhill: I am worried about the situation as it has emerged in the discussion. If I follow the noble Lord, Lord Plowden, correctly, the concept of the Secretary of State wanting a national system, so to speak, seems to suggest that the Secretary of State is to become the employer of the teachers. I know of no case where people who are not employees of the Government are subject to such an appraisal.
I am bound to remind the Committee that even when the percentage grant from central government was 60 per cent. of the cost of the education service there was never a proposal other than that the local education authorities were the employers of the teachers; but now that the contribution is about 49 per cent. and the local authorities bear 51 per cent. of the cost, is it suggested that this, so to speak, minority shareholder, the Secretary of State, is to run the whole service? I am appalled at such a suggestion.
The 1944 Act was perfectly clear in its concept of the relationship between central and local
416
government. For 20 years that worked most successfully and the education service was developed rapidly and, in my opinion, effectively. Unfortunately, party politics then became mixed up with it and that caused all the trouble. The Committee will know where it started. It was at a Conservative Party conference in Scarborough, which passed a resolution approving the tripartite system of education. The Labour Party promptly passed a resolution in favour of comprehensive education. They have been arguing about it ever since.
I cannot believe that we will not do dreadful harm to the education service if this Bill emerges with the Secretary of State enjoying a power greater than any Secretary of State in the history of the education service in this country. That frightens me more than anything else. Central control and direction is not the answer in a democratic society. Distribution of power in the education service—as I have said repeatedly and as I said in my maiden speech in this House—is a fundamental condition of freedom in a democratic society.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I was not able to be present during the discussion on the previous amendment, and so I hope I shall be forgiven if anything I say on this amendment I should have said then.
My understanding, and I hope that my noble friend will confirm it, is that this suggestion has nothing whatever to do with running teachers from the centre, any more than the move in the examination system towards measuring against national criteria rather than against the group being examined in a given subject at a given time is the centralising of teaching. Surely the setting of national criteria against which local authorities can make arrangements for assessing teachers and in which they can involve teachers in assessing themselves—which, as the noble Baroness observed, is in the financial explanation—is the way that it should be done.
The setting of national criteria can only be a good proposal. If one does not do that one always finds people within one local authority making arrangements against the criteria that they set themselves the previous year and perhaps meeting objections that have occurred the previous year, so that one authority is perhaps lowering expectations and another raising them. How much better to have national criteria within which the local authority works.
I may be misunderstanding the intention, and it is certainly not clear from the legislation precisely how it will operate, but it is no more than that. It seems to me that not to have national criteria would be a great mistake. It is not what people want. They want teachers to know where they are and not to be at the mercy of party politics. A good appraisal system will get politics out of promotion in those authorities where politics are playing far too big a part. It will make it clear to everyone what the arrangement is—and it will not always be the same in every authority—and how teachers can aspire to improve their performance. That does not seem to me to be threatening at all. It is what the public want and I should have thought that it is what everyone wants, except possibly some local authorities which are

417
alarmed that they will not have 100 per cent. of the say. However, they are quite accustomed to meeting national criteria in other ways and they will do so here. It seems to me to be the national mood and the national will, and, indeed, a very sensible arrangement.
5 p.m.
The Earl of Swinton: For the second time, I find myself making a "clause stand part" speech on the amendment. We seem to have had a number of points made in the last debate all over again. Noble Lords will be aware that in Better Schools, the Government stressed that appraisal was a key instrument for developing teacher quality. This clause gives the Secretary of State an enabling power to set up by regulation a national framework for appraisal. I stress the words "national framework". The Government's preference remains for appraisal to be introduced voluntarily on the basis of practical fieldwork and voluntary agreement between the teachers' unions, the local education authorities and the Government. If this desirable outcome is achieved, it might well be appropriate to use the enabling power of this clause to set firmly in place this national framework.
Local appraisal schemes are developing. The noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, mentioned one in Suffolk. We are watching that with interest. A national framework is needed to ensure that the many teachers who move about the country have their performance appraised in a broadly consistent way. Failing a national agreement, a legislative framework would be essential to avoid proliferation of inconsistent local schemes. In either case, the intention is not to create a straitjacket but to provide room for local manoeuvre within broad national guidelines.
I have made abundantly clear—as everyone will, I think, agree whatever their views on the amendment—that the Government's preference is for appraisal to be introduced voluntarily on the basis of voluntary agreement between the teachers' unions, the local authorities and the Government. Even with this desirable outcome, it might well be appropriate to use the enabling power to set up a national framework to ensure that the many teachers who move about the country have their performance appraised in a broadly consistent way.
I was a little surprised to hear the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, say that this is a break from tradition. I was even more surprised to hear the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Potterhill, whose knowledge of the education system far outweighs mine. I remember as a very junior member of an education committee trembling in awe and terror before the noble Lord and then having a jar or two afterwards with him. I would, however, point out that there is already a national framework for the appraisal of probationary teachers. If the noble Lord has forgotten that or temporarily overlooked it, he will find it set out in the 1981 teachers' regulations. If all concerned see that a national framework is desirable and acceptable for probationers, why not also for teachers in their subsequent career? As in the probation regulations, the idea would not be to impose a straitjacket but to provide broad national guidelines with room for local flexibility.
418
The noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby. asked me what all this is about. I can perhaps refer the noble Lord to a speech made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to the Industrial Society conference on the Education Bill on 14th April, spelling out what he sees as being the purposes and the various ways in which appraisal might be used. I shall gladly send the noble Lord and, indeed, any other noble Lord who so wishes, a copy of the speech, so that they can study what my right honourable friend has in mind. I should like, in fact, to quote briefly from the speech to give some idea of what it contained. tinder the heading, "What purpose is appraisal supposed to serve?"—the very question the noble Lord asked—my right honourable friend said:
"An appraisal system for school teachers should serve a variety of purposes. The findings of the appraisal system should be taken into account when schools and local education authorities come to decide such matters as planning in-service training provision, selecting in-service training participants and developing the careers of individual teachers, for example, through deployment, promotion, counselling and assistance. The overall purpose is better decisions by local education authorities and school management, feeding through to better teacher performance and better pupil achievement. The whole object is to help improve teaching effectiveness".
This amendment would transfer the power to determine the framework of appraisal from the Secretary of State to local education authorities. Regulations made under such an arrangement would be a patchwork and not, as we see it, a framework. The aim of ensuring a bottom line of consistency between LEA arrangements for appraisal would be swept away. Consequently, I must ask the Committee to reject the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The Government's replies to this debate are not only unsatisfactory, they are positively alarming. The noble Lord, Lord Alexander, put the point very precisely. If it is proposed that the minority shareholders in our education system, those who do not employ the teachers, those who do not run the school systems—in other words, central government—shall have the control over the appraisal of individual teachers throughout their careers, then we have a complete break with all the traditions not only of the education service but of appraisal in any sphere of employment. It seems to me inconceivable that the Government—
The Earl of Swinton: If we honestly had these things, I, for one, should not be moving the Bill from this side of the House. With all respect to the noble Lord, this is a travesty. There is no question of our trying to employ the teachers or trying to form some national system. We are trying to set up a framework for it. I hope that the noble Lord will accept what I say. I would not have anything to do with such a thing as he describes if I had to put it forward for the Government.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am delighted to hear the noble Earl confirm something that did not need confirming. I was not making that claim. It is common ground between us that central government does not employ teachers. It is common ground between us that central government does not actually run the schools. What the noble Earl has now confirmed is the

419
illogicality and, indeed, the undesirability of having central government, which is not the employer and which does not run the schools, actually imposing the appraisal system. It is quite inadequate for the noble Earl to say that we have a national framework for probationary teachers. It is true that our teacher training system—probation is part of that, and an immediate follow-on from that—does necessarily have a national framework because it is providing teachers for the school system as a whole. That is not the way in which our subsequent education system operates. It operates through local control of finance and employment. It is plainly irrational of the Government to seek, on this one matter of appraisal, to impose this national framework about which the noble Earl is so keen. I apologise. It is not, in fact, one matter. We see in the next clause that the Government seek to impose a national framework on the in-service training of teachers. We shall have something to say about that matter, too.
Everything that the Government have said convinces me not only that our individual amendments are correct but, as my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby, has said, that there is something fundamentally wrong with this clause. The Government appear to have in mind through the words of their spokesman in the Committee today a much clearer idea of the purposes and methods of appraisal than they are prepared to put into the Bill. If it is thought—I can see the justification for this—that it is unsuitable for the face of the Bill to set out a complete appraisal scheme, then, surely, the Government should agree, as the Secretary of State has already been asked by my right honourable and honourable friends in another place, to publish model statutory instruments about the appraisal system before asking the Committee and this House to agree that Clause 37 should stand part of the Bill.
I am not expecting the Government to answer that point now. I leave the thought with the Committee and suggest that, if the Government come back with model statutory instruments that are to the satisfaction of the House, we might well consider not making further moves at Report stage. If there is no move in that direction, I can undertake to the Committee that we shall hear more of the matter. We will not agree to a blank cheque being given to the Government for the appraisal of teachers in service in our schools and in our institutions of further education.
With that indication of our further views I think that it would be appropriate for me to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Kilmarnock Lord Kilmarnock moved Amendment No. 86A:
Page 39, line 22, at end insert ("and
(d) requiring local education authorities to provide for a person of standing, not employed by and independent of the local education authority that is the employer of the teacher concerned, to be involved in each appraisal.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment also addresses the Government's proposals in Clause 37 for the appraisal of teachers' performance. We have already had extensive debates about the propriety of
420
this in principle. I gather that the Labour Party is opposed to appraisal, and so are the teachers' unions. Certainly in the form set out here it does not commend itself to us.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Will the noble Lord forgive me for interrupting? We have never said that the Labour Party was opposed to appraisal. We have said that the Labour Party was opposed to appraisal imposed in the way that Clause 37 proposes to impose it. However, that is not being opposed to appraisal; indeed, we have said the opposite.
Lord Kilmarnock: In that case I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. I thought his party's views were somewhat different. I am glad to hear the noble Lord say that.
As I was saying, the proposal does not commend itself to us in the form in which it appears in this Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said only a few minutes ago, it gives the Secretary of State a totally blank cheque, including a right to assess what is unassessable, as my noble friend Lord Ritchie suggested on an earlier amendment.
It is arguable that certain of the disputed other activities could be taken into account in a much improved teacher contract, including a right to in-service training and proper career development. Another approach could be the setting up of a teachers' professional body on the lines advocated in this House by the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock.
However, that is not what is before us. We have here something quite different. It is an extremely unsatisfactory clause in the Bill. My amendment seeks simply to make the Government's proposals at least somewhat fairer than they are and to allay the very understandable suspicions of the teaching profession.
The amendment simply requires local education authorities,
"to provide for a person of standing, not employed by and independent of the local education authority that is the employer of the teacher concerned, to be involved in each appraisal".
I am not sure that my form of words is necessarily quite right, but my aim is to get the Government to acknowledge the principle and to come forward at some stage of the Bill—possibly the next stage—with an amendment of their own. The noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, who is no longer in her place, talked about teachers appraising teachers, but there are considerable dangers if one keeps it too in-house. So I am not wedded to the wording I have down here. This is a probing amendment and I should like to hear the reaction of the noble Earl to it. I beg to move.
5.15 p.m.
The Earl of Swinton: The effect of this amendment would be to have an outsider, unspecified but defined as being independent of the LEA concerned, involved in the appraisal of each and every teacher. The motive, as the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, has expressed, is to ensure fairness for the individual. Such fairness is clearly essential and the Government are most concerned that appraisal arrangements should embody adequate safeguards for the individual. But the education service would be unique if it were to have an external element carried into its appraisal

421
scheme. As I understand it, model practice in the private and public sector is to build into internal management procedures appropriate checks and balances to avoid bias, favouritism and so on. Some do it by means of "grandfathers" who scrutinise the appraisals of immediate superiors. Also, as is envisaged for teachers—and I referred to this earlier—in Clause 37(2)(b) it is standard for the appraisees to have the right to make representations.
I wonder whether the teachers themselves would want somebody with the judgment of Solomon standing at the back of their classroom, listening to them in action, and then saying, "I, who have nothing to do with the local education authority, teaching or schools, know just what is wrong with you or what is right with you". With all respect to the noble Lord this strikes me as being a very strange suggestion.
As I have said before—but I cannot get this message across—the Government do not have a national blueprint to impose. These important matters can and should be worked out by the parties concerned. But the Government's view is that senior personnel in the schools themselves, and, as appropriate, in the LEAs, should provide the management expertise to operate an appraisal scheme which is sensitive to the understandable anxieties of teachers and embodies adequate safeguards for the individual. I think the noble Lord will have guessed that the Government do not think an awful lot of this suggestion.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: The mover of the amendment ought to tell us where this independent assessor will come from. It might be a parent of a child at the school. The child might have carried tales about the school to his parents. I presume that the teacher would have the right to object to the assessor in the same way that an accused person can object to a juror: on the grounds that perhaps he would not get a fair deal.
What is more important is the question: who will appraise the heads and deputy heads? This is a problem with which we had to deal in the Inland Revenue. I am sorry to keep referring to the Inland Revenue, but it is about the most sensible piece of administrative personnel machinery that one can find. We solved this problem by making the inspecting officer the independent assessor for district inspectors, for example, who are in a similar position to heads of schools. I would say that HMI is probably the person who ought to appraise the heads of schools. He already has to look at the school as a whole and so on. All these matters need discussion somewhere, at some time.
Again we have the mischief of trying to do too much without doing enough in the statute law. I am sorry that I cannot support the Alliance on this amendment because I do not think it is necessary. Objections can be raised against it. That is another detail. This is only one of half a dozen important matters which will have to be discussed and negotiated. I think that the best thing to do on this clause is not to try to amend it but to vote against it.
Lord Kilmarnock: The noble Earl has left me in no doubt of his view of this proposal. I was glad to hear the Government's commitment to fairness and I hope that it will extend to other areas of the Bill. The noble
422
Earl seemed to feel that the proposed checks and balances would be adequate. He also suggested that it would not be encouraging for teachers to have people with no knowledge of education forming part of the assessment process. I would confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, that I had in mind—though they are not specified in the amendment—such people as HMIs, or indeed representatives from other education authorities. I should have thought that that was a very sensible check and/or balance to introduce into this kind of procedure. However, I put this forward simply to gauge the feeling of the Committee. I shall read the debate. For the moment I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Kilmarnock Lord Kilmarnock moved Amendment No. 86B:
Page 40, line 2, at end insert—
("(4) Regulations made by the Secretary of State under this section shall not come into force unless they have been laid before and approved by affirmative resolution of each House of Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: It has already emerged from the discussions that we have had on this subject that there are severe disagreements about how an appraisal system could best be run. The Government's Clause 37 has come in for widespread criticism on all sorts of points during the course of our debates in Committee this afternoon.
In the last amendment, I was trying to argue that there could be less teacher opposition if the system were at least seen to be fair and objective and not to permit of any local victimisation. Certainly the Secretary of State does not have the monopoly of wisdom on this subject, as is evidenced by the clause that he has brought before us in so clumsy a form that it presumes to appraise such activities as are at present voluntary and arise from supervision or leadership of non-curricular activities that cannot possibly be assessed. My noble friend Lord Ritchie has already pointed out that such activity cannot possibly be susceptible to appraisal under some kind of points system.
If the Secretary of State can make such unrealistic proposals in the Bill, then it is not at all acceptable to us that he should have the right to make whatever regulations he likes without returning to Parliament. By Parliament, I mean both Houses of Parliament, with particular reference to this House, where there is a great deal of knowledge, expertise and wisdom on those matters, some of which has already been demonstrated this afternoon.
I remind the Committee that the amendment reads:
"Regulations made by the Secretary of State under this section shall not come into force unless they have been laid before and approved by affirmative resolution of each House of Parliament".
Some noble Lords may secretly feel that that proviso is lacking in value because it lacks teeth. Indeed, your Lordships can reject regulations but very seldom do so, and your Lordships cannot amend them. Therefore, what is the point of such a proviso?
The point is that we can debate regulations, and if we believe that they are misconceived or are open to serious criticism, then we can point that out to the Secretary of State and even move a Motion asking the Government to withdraw them and reconsider them

423
in the light of the opinions expressed in this Chamber. That means that we should at least be able to look at the Secretary of State's proposals and give him the benefit of our advice and the opportunity to take his proposals away and think again if we do not feel that his first effort has been up to scratch.
It really is not good enough to allow the Secretary of State to produce regulations in this very sensitive area, vitally affecting the future of the teaching profession and what our children are taught in schools, without coming back to Parliament. I beg to move.
Lord Somers: Here again we have this business of having to consult both Houses of Parliament. If we go on like that, before very long we shall have to consult both Houses of Parliament before we appoint a teacher. It seems to me that it would be much better to let the Houses of Parliament get on with their own work, which certainly has nothing to do with education.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: Perhaps I may say a few words in support of my noble friend Lord Kilmarnock. This clause is causing considerable apprehension among the teaching profession, and such an amendment as my noble friend proposes would give teachers some reassurance that the Secretary of State's proposals will be scrutinised. The teachers do not know what may come forth from on high; that is the trouble. A provision such as that proposed would give them some reassurance. I am afraid that all this arises from the lack of trust that at the moment obtains between the teaching profession and the Secretary of State. A provision such as my noble friend proposes would do something to give reassurance in a very sensitive situation.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am in sympathy with that which the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, wants to do, but I share his scepticism about the effectiveness of statutory instruments and regulations being laid before both Houses of Parliament—largely for the reasons he gives; that they are not capable of amendment, and by convention they are not actually turned back, particularly if they have been approved by another place.
I wonder what the noble Lord feels about the suggestion I made a few minutes ago: that before we approve Clause 37 as part of the Bill, we should see a model statutory instrument. It is when considering the later stages of the Bill that we shall need to know in writing, and not simply from the lips even of the noble Earl, what really is in the Government's mind.
The Earl of Swinton: This amendment, as has been admirably explained, would require that regulations made by the Secretary of State on the subject of teacher appraisal should not come into force unless they have been laid before, and approved by affirmative resolution of, each House of Parliament. I would not go so far as the noble Lord, Lord Somers, on this.
I am sure that all noble Lords are aware that Clause 48 of the Bill makes clear the Government's intention that powers of the Secretary of State to make orders or regulations under the Bill shall be exercised by statutory instrument, and that such instruments shall
424
be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament; that is, the negative resolution procedure should apply.
I see no reason why the regulations on appraisal should be treated differently from others in this Bill. I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, that they will indeed be of major importance, but I have more than once made clear what is the Government's position on this matter. Our intention is that the framework for appraisal arrangements should be drawn up on a voluntary basis by agreement between the parties concerned; teacher representatives, the local authority employers, and central government.
That process will surely involve much consultation and debate. In fact, that debate has been running for some time and, as far as it is possible with the unions blocking development work to look into the practical issues, my right honourable friend has spelt out the sort of arrangements that he would like to see. They are positive arrangements designed to stimulate professional development and improve management. I should have thought that when the regulations come before Parliament they will contain nothing that has not been the subject of analysis and open debate between the parties concerned.
I can assure everyone that the regulations will not be pulled out of the hat. My right honourable friend really does not have some overpowering white rabbit that he is waiting to unleash upon a miserable band of teachers throughout the country. There will be time for consultation. In those circumstances, the process of negative resolution is surely entirely appropriate. If there remain matters of concern, then the regulations can, after all, be prayed against and a debate must be held. Consequently, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw this amendment.
Lord Wilson of Langside: I myself found the Minister's reply to the speech of my noble friend Lord Kilmarnock most disturbing, because it does not meet at all the point on the basis of which my noble friend presented his amendment to the Committee.
The Minister is content in simply saying that he sees no reason to treat this provision any differently from the other provisions of the Bill that may have the effect of empowering the Secretary of State to make regulations. As I understood the speech of my noble friend, he was saying, and in this he was supported by the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie of Dundee, that the regulations under Clause 37 should be treated differently because everyone who had spoken on the earlier amendments had expressed grave anxieties about the provisions of Clause 37. Indeed, I listened to all the speeches that were made, and no one said a word in favour of them with the exception of the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, for whose judgment in many matters I have the greatest respect. However, it was clear that, in relation to this matter, the noble Baroness had not listened at all to the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Potterhill, who expressed the gravest anxieties about the provisions of this clause.
The Minister's answer does not meet the point. Everyone who spoke, with the exception of the noble Baroness, expressed the gravest concern. People who are knowledgeable and experienced as regards the

425
matters with which the Bill is concerned, expressed the gravest concern. Surely that is a perfectly good reason for treating the provisions in this clause relating to statutory instruments quite differently from the other provisions in the Bill.
5.30 p.m.
The Earl of Swinton: The noble Lord, Lord Somers, spoke in support of this clause on two occasions. However, I can understand all that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside, has said if, with all respect, he believes what the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Potterhill, reads into this provision, which is that all the teachers will be taken over by some coup by my right honourable friend and paid for centrally. If Members believe that, then I can understand the reasons for their anxiety. However, as I have tried to explain, that is not the point of the provision. The negative procedure is perfectly adequate to cope with anything which may arise under this clause or, indeed, the rest of the Bill.
Lord Alexander of Potterhill: I did not say that I thought that that was what would happen. I was quoting the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, who said that that would have been the right thing to do. I do not fear the Secretary of State taking over the teachers in this country. He would not be Secretary of State very long if he did so.
The Earl of Swinton: I am most grateful for that remark.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: I did not say that it was the right thing to do. I said that I could understand it, and I made the confession that if I were the Secretary of State for Education it was what I would want to do. However, that is not quite the same thing. Let us get the record straight, otherwise there will be more trouble.
The Earl of Swinton: There seems to be a general misunderstanding, but I can give a categorical undertaking that what has been put forward is not in the mind of either my right honourable friend or anyone else in the Government at present.
Lord Kilmarnock: I was as amazed as the noble Earl to hear the noble Lord, Lord Somers, make the remarkable statement—and I wrote it down—that our work has nothing to do with education. If he really means that, he would do the noble Earl out of a job, other of course than in his distinguished capacity as Captain of the Yeomen of the Guard. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Somers, that I am not suggesting consulting Parliament upon something trivial; I am suggesting that Parliament should be consulted on a whole new mechanism to be imported into the field of education—an almost revolutionary concept. I do not think that that can be put down as trivial.
As always, I listened with respect to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, who followed me when I pointed out the constraints under which we operate in this House on affirmative instruments. However, I remind the noble Lord that Motions have been moved—and no doubt will be moved—before or after instruments of
426
that kind, asking the Government to withdraw them. If my memory does not serve me ill, regulation have been withdrawn after debate in this House. Indeed, I think that that was possibly the case in relation to a Motion of my noble friend Lady Seear on equal pay for equal work. Perhaps I overdid it myself in suggesting that this form of procedure is entirely toothless; I do not think that it is.
The noble Earl has assured us that regulations will not be pulled out of a hat. He has talked about consultation. I should like to ask him what form of consultation he has in mind. Is he thinking of a discussion paper, a Green Paper, a press release, or what? Perhaps before I decide what to do with the amendment, the noble Earl will, with the leave of the House, say a few words on the matter.
I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside, for his support, and I am bound to say, bearing in mind the balance of the debate at the moment, that I am not satisfied that we do not need to bring these regulations back to Parliament in the form of a statutory instrument. A great deal of concern about Clause 37 has been expressed on all sides of the Committee. I do not know whether the noble Earl is able to tell me something about the form of consultation?
The Earl of Swinton: Yes, I can indeed, It has been going on for a long time. The Government's intentions on appraisal were first set out in March 1983 in Teaching Quality, which said:
"The Government believe that the formal assessment of teacher performance is necessary."
Since the summer of 1984 the department has been trying to launch practical fieldwork to work out how appraisal might best operate in the schools. Specific grant for this work has been available, but the opposition of the unions has meant that it has not been taken up.
In October 1984 the Secretary of State wrote to the local authority associations and the teacher unions suggesting for the first time the possibility of his taking an enabling power to secure appraisal. Both employers and unions, including the NUT, have continued to endorse the idea of appraisal in principle. For example, when my right honourable friend met the NUT in January 1985 there was considerable agreement on the value of appraisal for the professional and personal development of teachers.
In March 1985 the White Paper, Better Schools, which referred to appraisal, appeared. In June 1985 HMI issued Quality in Schools: Evaluation and Appraisal, and so on. Quite honestly, consultation is taking place the whole time. There is a great deal of discussion taking place at the moment.
Lord Kilmarnock: I am most grateful to the noble Earl. He has pointed out that there has been a great deal of discussion of the idea of appraisal in principle, and he has pointed to various discussion and background papers. However, we are now in the area of a statute and that statute is extremely sketchy in this respect. Therefore, although I am grateful for the noble Earl's attempt to satisfy me, I am bound to say that I do not think that he has done so, and I am inclined to test the opinion of the Committee.
5.38 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 86B) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 64; Not-Contents, 109.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Amherst, E.

McNair, L.

Ardwick, L.

Mais, L.

Attlee, E.

Mishcon, L.

Aylestone, L.

Molloy, L.

Birk, B.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Bottomley, L.

Mulley, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Nicol, B.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Oram, L.

David, B.

Phillips, B.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Diamond, L.

Rea, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Ennals, L.

Rochester, L.

Foot, L.

Serota, B.

Gallacher, L.

Shackleton, L.

Grey, E.

Shepherd, L.

Hampton, L.

Silkin of Dulwich, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Stallard, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Stedman, B. [Teller.]

Irving of Dartford, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Jeger, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Strabolgi, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Kennet, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Tordoff, L. [Teller.]

Kirkhill, L.

Underhill, L.

Listowel, E.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

White, B.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Lockwood, B.

Willis, L.

Longford, E.

Wilson of Langside, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Alport, L.

Ferrers, E.

Auckland, L.

Forester, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Beloff, L.

Gainford, L.

Belstead, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Bessborough, E.

Geddes, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Gisborough, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Glanusk, L.

Brentford, V.

Glenarthur, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Greenway, L.

Butterworth, L.

Gridley, L.

Caithness, E.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Harris of High Cross, L.

Cathcart, E.

Henley, L.

Coleraine, L.

Hereford, Bp.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Hives, L.

Cox, B.

Hood, V.

Craigavon, V.

Hooper, B.

Croft, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Killearn, L.

Davidson, V.

Kitchener, E.

De La Warr, E.

Lane-Fox, B.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Lawrence, L.

Denning, L.

Layton, L.

Digby, L.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Dilhorne, V.

Lothian, M.

Dormer, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

McFadzean, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Mancroft, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Marley, L.

Elton, L.

Marsh, L.

428

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Somers, L.

Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.

Sudeley, L.

Swansea, L.

Merrivale, L.

Swinfen, L.

Mersey, V.

Swinton, E.

Mottistone, L.

Teviot, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Teynham, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Orkney, E.

Thurlow, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Trenchard, V.

Portland, D.

Trumpington, B.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Rodney, L.

Vickers, B.

Romney, E.

Vivian, L.

Rugby, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Whitelaw, V.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Wolfson, L.

Sandford, L.

Young, B.

Sempill, Ly.

Young of Graffham, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.46 p.m.
Clause 37 agreed to.
Clause 38 [Grants for teacher training]:
[Amendment Nos. 86C and 86D not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 38 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I have not given notice of my intention to oppose the Motion that Clause 38 stand part of the Bill. It is always difficult to anticipate whether there are going to be amendments from any quarter on a particular clause which will enable one to say the things that have to be said. We appear to be approving, without comment, the provisions for in-service training of teachers.
It is appropriate that a word should be said about the Government's proposals, as with appraisal, on the basis that there is no opposition at all on this side to the in-service training of teachers but there are some doubts about the method whereby in-service training of teachers may be secured, and whether this is the best way of going about it. I rise on the Motion that the clause stand part in order that the Government may have an opportunity to make their position as clear as possible so as to help us in our consideration of how to treat these matters at later stages in the passage of the Bill.
The proposals for the in-service training of teachers were certainly anticipated and presaged by a speech by the Secretary of State in March of last year. There is no question that there has been consultation on these matters and that the matter is referred to in better schools. Indeed, the Secretary of State last year referred, very properly, to the report of 1984 of the Advisory Committee on the supply and education of teachers. However, I should not like it to be thought that we accept the claim made by the Secretary of State that these particular proposals for in-service training follow naturally from the proposals of the Advisory Committee on the supply and education of teachers and would have the support of that committee.
The Advisory Committee is a committee of all partners in the education service. Broadly what it

429
recommended was a programe of in-service education and training for teachers which should be accompanied by an increase in funding for the purpose, and that the local authorities should retain the power to decide how the money is spent. In view of what is said in the Notes on Clauses on this clause it is important that the in-service training system should be "systematic and purposeful"—I do not think anybody would disagree with that—but also that it should concentrate on "areas of national priority".
I am not convinced that the advisory council, if it were reassembled to consider this clause, would be so confident either that the resources are being made available or that there is sufficient agreement about areas of national priority to justify the way in which this clause is being proposed. I remind the Committee of what the advisory committee said in its recommendations. It said that there should be a general grant to education authorities for in-service education and training; and that it should be paid at 90 per cent. and distributed on a basis agreed between central and local government. Local education authorities should have discretion on how to use the grant within the INSET field, and the recommended target should be 5 per cent. of the expenditure on teachers' salaries.
The important matters here are two-fold. The first is that there should genuinely be new money for this purpose. I should welcome some words of assurance from the Government that the money which will be devoted to in-service education and training will be in addition to the general grant going to the education service. The second is that, as ACSET recommended, the power to decide how the money will be spent shall remain with the local authorities.
It is all very well to talk about areas of national priority. We can all identify areas such as, and particularly, science teaching or teaching in computing and information technology. One could name a number of others where this is of high priority for the development of our scientific, technological and industrial skills in this country. But that does not mean to say that an individual local authority necessarily has the same priorities.
It may be that an individual local authority has a high standard of scientific or engineering teaching and that in its case the money should be spent more on teaching basic mathematics, languages or other subjects which are as important but which may not have been identified by the Government as areas of national priority. To that extent surely local authorities must have the ability to take account, by all means, of the national priorities which the Government set, but to adapt them not to their own prejudices or to their own ill thought out wishes but to the actual quality of teaching in different areas that is available to them and the needs of the teaching staff that they have in their service.
This is not making any revolutionary point and it is certainly not making a point against the improvement and better co-ordination of the in-service education and training of teachers. That is an objective which we all share, but I should be grateful for something more than is in the Bill or was in the Second Reading speeches to indicate the way in which the Government see this provision taking place; an assurance that it will be genuinely new money, an assurance that the
430
individual needs of local authorities will be taken into account and that the many recommendations of the Advisory Committee on the Supply and Education of Teachers will be taken into account in the implementation of the clause.
The Earl of Swinton: Clause 38 will enable the Government to grant-aid local authority expenditure on the in-service training of teachers and certain others closely involved in the education service. It is idely accepted that the current arrangements are imperfect and that a more systematic approach to the planning of in-service training is required at local level. A new system of grants would create the framework for more purposeful and systematic planning.
I am aware that the local authorities wish to see an increase in expenditure on in-service training from the beginning of the scheme. We fully accept that our policies for improving schools will make increasing demands on teachers and that extensive in-service training will be required to equip teachers to respond to these demands. We also consider that in-service training should form a part of the career development of all teachers. The amount of local authority expenditure to be grant-aided under the intended new scheme in 1987–89 will be determined later this year as part of the Government's wider consideration of local authority expenditure.
The Government cannot take decisions on the financing of the scheme ahead of their general consideration of public expenditure, and so the question of whether it is new money has not yet been decided. But the new grant should simplify and systemise the existing arrangements for supporting expenditure by local authorities on training. I hope that the Association of County Councils and the Association of Metropolitan Authorities will enter into dialogue with us on the detailed aspects of the scheme to help to ensure that the new scheme provides the benefits which we intend.
I am also aware of concern that the new grant mechanism would be incompatible with the proper exercise of local authority discretion over the deployment of resources for in-service training. In reply I would stress our intention that the prime responsibility for planning, and implementing in-service training would remain with the local authority. Our aim is to create a better framework for more effective local planning and management which we believe is in the interests of local authorities and of teachers.
As I said, detailed arrangements for the new scheme are currently under consideration. We intend that grant will be provided to support local authority expenditure incurred after 1st April 1987, subject to enabling legislation and the coming into force of the necessary regulations.
Clause 38 agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 86E:
After Clause 38, insert the follow new clause:
("Training of school governors
. A central advisory unit shall be set up to—

(a) collect and publicise governor training materials:

(b) promote good practices in governor training; and

(c) develop new initiatives in governor training and support.")

The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I should also like also to speak to Amendment No. 92 which is concerned with the same issue of ensuring that governing bodies have the training and skills necessary for the proper exercise of the functions laid on them by the Bill. I noticed that my noble friend Lady Phillips expressed scepticism about the training of governors. I do not know whether she was confident about the ability of governors to exercise their functions without training or whether she felt that it was a wrong use of public finance. No doubt she will be able to enlighten me on that point.
I say to my noble friend and to the Committee that for some years now there has been recognition by governors that the proceedings of a governing body, the effective conduct of governing bodies and the way in which an individual governor can perform effectively as a governor is not something which comes as a matter of animal instinct. It requires, particularly for those who have not been used to committee procedure, some introduction and training. A number of local authorities and the National Association of Governors and Managers particularly, have taken pains, at their own expense and not at the expense of the public purse, to provide training materials and courses for new members of governing bodies. I have seen the programme of the National Association of Governors and Managers and I express my admiration for the work that it has done within the limits of the resources available.
The Bill proposes, in our view rightly, that there should be a wider responsibility for governing bodies and a different method of composition of governing bodies. It seems logical that if we are to have considerable numbers of new people coming on to governing bodies—and many more governing bodies, apart from anything else, because the provision for governing bodies is universal and the provision for grouping of governing bodies is very restrictive—there will be literally thousands of members of governing bodies (sometimes a majority of a particular governing body) without the experience of committee work or of the education service which is available to those who have been serving on governing bodies in the past.
Therefore, to provide the minimum, as we see it, in these amendments—
"A central advisory unit … to collect and publicise … training materials … promote good practices in governor training … and develop new initiatives in governor training and … support
—and then, in Clause 43, if I may anticipate it, to see to it that the local authority has the responsibility of ensuring that governors are provided with such training and support as is necessary for the effective discharge of the functions of a governing body seems to us a useful corollary to the intentions of the Government. It in no way conflicts with the purpose of the Bill. It does not involve central government in substantial additional expenditure and, indeed, with the continued co-operation of a body such as the National Association of Governors and Managers it need not involve substantial additional expenditure for the local authorities themselves.
I hope that the Government will feel that these amendments are in the spirit of the Bill and that they
432
will find some way of accepting them or of giving recognition to the principal behind them. I beg to move.
6 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: I rise to support this clause. I think that it is one which is necessary and which very much needs inclusion in the Bill. The reason I support it is that some time ago when I was going round looking at governing bodies I realised that many of them were unaware of what were their rights as governors and, because of their unawareness, all kinds of decisions were taken that should not have been taken—decisions which had to be corrected by the local education officers.
I should like to use the analogy that I have used on numerous occasions in emphasising the need for training. Years ago, when I was first appointed a magistrate, there was no training for magistrates. My only way of gaining experience was by sitting back and listening and then asking questions, after the case had been tried, of the people who were on the bench or of the learned clerk. I feel that the new decisions of the Lord Chancellor's department—and they are not really new now; they have been in force for several years—on training magistrates are good and proper. I feel that due to that we have many good magistrates who are doing a very useful job throughout the country.
If we had a similar scheme for the training of governors, it would again improve the government of schools. I am not suggesting that we introduce a training scheme that would enable all governors to come away with a diploma or with a B Ed. Degree; I am wanting something simple that can be operated. I differ from my noble friend Lord McIntosh on this. I would rather see a national agreement on training than leave it to the local authorities. I would leave it to local authorities to administer, but I should like to see a national body that would devise a scheme that would be acceptable to local authorities—but we are getting on to that matter later. I feel at this moment that the amendment before us is good, is practicable, and will work. Quite a number of good local authorities, sensible local authorities, have introduced this already, and it is proving of great benefit to a great many people who spend a lot of time in service to education as governors.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey (because I think that he said that he was speaking also to Amendment No. 92), what he has in mind by the use in that amendment of the word "support". Support apparently is something distinct from training. I do not think that there is much dispute about training, but "support" is a very general expression. Does it mean support of a financial value—the provision of a secretary or a car? It is a very imprecise expression, as I understand it. It might possibly be the basis of some abuse. At any rate, before the Committee is asked to decide on this amendment I should like to know how the noble Lord himself understands that word.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am happy to answer the noble Lord, although I think that my noble friend

433
Lord Taylor, has in effect already answered him by his analogy in relation to magistrates. I would remind him that Clause 43 at present provides that local authorities shall make available,
"to every … governor (free of charge) such training as the authority consider necessary".
The word "support" means that not only should the training be available but that such things as fares to the training centres, subsistence to pay for meals while the training is going on—that kind of thing, which is proposed by the Government themselves in Clause 44 for the meetings of governing bodies—should also be available on those occasions when training takes place. I think it is rational that if you are providing support for governors to attend governors' meetings you should provide the same support when they are attending a course of training.
Baroness Phillips: Since my noble friend mentioned me, although I had no intention of speaking on this particular amendment I naturally rise to the bait that is laid. I do so whether it comes from my own Front Bench or from the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, who has not actually laid me any bait in this particular discussion. But I would question very much whether people who are trained for voluntary exercises actually perform them much better than those who adopt the old system of, "Sit next to Nellie!" Like the noble Lord here, I went on the Bench when there was no formal training. I do not think that I was ever a very bad magistrate, because I have got reasonable intelligence and I was given an idea of what my particular functions were.
Equally, as a chairman of governors I found that our governors, when they came on to the boards of the voluntary schools—and I am beginning to think that the voluntary schools must be quite different from state schools, bearing in mind the different matters that have emerged from these debates—were each given the details of their particular conditions, of the fact that they were governors and of the things that they could and could not do. I cannot recall any occasion when we ever came into conflict with the local education authority or, indeed, when we did not perform an excellent piece of work.
I was, equally, an unpaid and untrained councillor many years ago. I do not think that the quality of local government then was any less than it is today. There are moments when I think that it was decidedly better. I think that you can overstate the value of training voluntary people. I think that if you get people who are intelligent and have a knowledge of life, they cannot go very far wrong. My reason particularly for being concerned about this is that if this Bill is going to cost £10 million then it is all going to come from the same source. It is going to come from a local education authority. If you are spending it on training governors while at the same time you have books in the schools which are a disgrace and in some cases almost unreadable, and if you have teachers who are not receiving an adequate salary, it seems to me that the money would be better employed in that direction rather than in introducing some frills. If, much later on, another government is elected which want to put more money in, that is a different thing. But that is my particular objection. I say to my noble friend that I
434
should like to see the money spent on the things that are really vital; namely, the children and the people who are teaching them.
Lord Beloff: If I may intervene between the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, and the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, it seems to me that a lot of the argument depends on what is thought of in terms of the amount of time that would be devoted. The word "training" means all sorts of things. If you are talking about training for a man to pilot an aircraft, then this is a matter of months or, in some cases, of years. Or are you thinking of something which could be done on a Saturday afternoon, just learning the rules of committee procedure? Or is there something in between? Unless we know the density, as it were, of the training, and the amount of time which governors are supposed to spend on it, we cannot answer the question as to how much the support would cost. Nor do I think we can altogether estimate the willingness of governors to submit themselves to training in addition to the work that they already do.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am grateful to the noble Lord for intervening between myself and my noble friend. I suggest that I am intervening between him and the Bill he is supporting, because the questions he is raising apply not only to the amendment but also to Clause 43 of the Bill. It is his Government which are proposing that,
"there is made available to every such governor (free of charge) such training as the authority consider necessary for the effective discharge of those functions."
If his question is valid—and I believe it is—it is to his own Front Bench that he should be directing the question. I can only give my personal answer; I cannot answer on behalf of the Government who are proposing to enact it in law.
My personal answer to my noble friend would be that I readily concede that when she first became a chairman of governors or a magistrate her native wit and understanding of the way in which our society operates made it unnecessary for her to have formal training. I am in no doubt about that whatsoever. However, in view of the many thousands of people without committee experience who are going to be involved—and I hope we are not going to become a nation of committee members because that would be a fate worse than death, even though I suspect most of us spend more of our time in committees than we would wish to—as new members of governing bodies a modicum of help would be useful on how to achieve certain things, when and how to ask questions and what the rights are of going to a school and talking to people there. I believe the Government are sincere in wishing to open up governing bodies to more people and different kinds of people. There are many things which are already the content of training for governors in good authorities and which could be valuable to these new governors. I do not believe that is in any way in conflict with the Government's wishes.
6.15 p.m.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Young): Perhaps I can start by saying that I agree with a good deal of what the noble Lord,

435
Lord McIntosh, has just said on the training of governors although I do not wish to come between him and his noble friend Lady Phillips, with whom I may say I quite frequently find myself in agreement. I think that Clause 43 has been widely welcomed in connection with the training of governors and it has to be read in conjunction with the early clauses in the Bill, setting out the greater importance and the greater proportion of governors who will be parent-governors, the greater importance we attach to the role of the governing body and therefore the need quite properly to train those who are to take part in these governing bodies.
I think one can advance very good reasons for this training; and it is on that point that I find myself in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, because I think there are many good reasons, particularly for parents who perhaps will not have had the experience of serving on a committee or of being a school governor, so that they may become from, as it were, day one, more effective governors than they otherwise might have been. Of course, some people are naturally good and they make naturally good governors without training, but I think that Clause 43 has been widely welcomed and that its provisions are to be seen in relation to the earlier clauses in the Bill on the role of governing bodies.
That said, I hope I can show that the new clause which is proposed in Amendment No. 86E is misconceived and not necessary,principally for two reasons. The first is the implication that local education authorities will not or cannot effectively organise the necessary provision. Until a year or so ago every survey showed that the provision of, and presumably interest in, governor training was extremely patchy; but things have changed dramatically. Many schemes are evolving in LEA areas, and arising from this two-thirds of LEAs put in extremely high-quality bids for the 10 pilot projects in appropriate forms of governor training just starting with the aid of education support grants. The results will be available in time for the new Clause 43 duty about training. I think that is good news, and news that we would all welcome.
LEAs do not have to be self-reliant in governor training. Many make use of other agencies which are active in the field: for example, dioceses in respect of voluntary schools, the Open University, the Workers' Education Association, the National Association of Governors and Managers, the Society of Education Officers and the National Association of Head Teachers. Clause 43 allows continued use of all these organisations and the talents that they represent.
The second misconception relates to the nature of the training needed. The aim is not to train governors to the point where they can in some way "out-perform" the school's teachers, on the one hand, or the LEA on the other. The aim is to give governors sufficient background knowledge and self-confidence to apply their natural ability as governors within the carefully drawn-up framework of responsibilities in Part III of the Bill. Those functions recognise the governing body as an essentially lay body between the professionals in the teaching force on the one hand,
436
and the LEA on the other. The necessary training therefore need not be elaborate.
If I may now turn to the second amendment, Amendment No. 92, where changes are proposed to Clause 43, here the first change is that the training has to be "provided" rather than "made available". Under this Bill, training is not to be obligatory and of course in that regard it differs from training of magistrates which, as I understand it, is obligatory. But the completion of training cannot be a pre-condition of taking up service as a governor. The Government very much hope that new governors will avail themselves of the opportunities for training. Against this background, I believe that the present formulation in Clause 43(b) is the right one.
The second change is that that which is to be provided has to be "necessary" to some absolute standard, rather than as judged by the LEA. As it is the LEA that is responsible for securing the provision, it has logically to be for the authority to decide what is required. Of course that does not give the LEA carte blanche: it would need to be able to demonstrate that it had seriously addressed the issue and come to a reasoned judgment. If it failed to provide anything or discharged its duty in a manifestly frivolous way, it would be liable to corrective direction by the Secretary of State under Sections 68 or 99 of the 1944 Act. That would of course be an extreme case. A much more obvious day-to-day force on LEAs is the fact that I am sure the governors will make it all too clear if they feel they are not being adequately prepared. It would therefore seem unnecessary to have some central standard set here, presumably by the proposed central unit, although I see that its role is to be only advisory. Indeed, such prescription could actually stifle welcome innovation and yet higher quality provision.
Finally, there has been some discussion about the word "support". My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked what it meant. As I understood the answer given by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, he suggested that this would include such matters as travelling expenses and subsistence, which might be available to those undertaking training. The answer would be that this would be covered by the provisions already in Clause 44 if the local education authority had a scheme of paying such allowances; and so that particular point would be covered. I very much agree with what my noble friend said: if it does not mean that, it is an imprecise term and it would be difficult to translate it into a meaningful duty to be added to the statute book.
I think it is encouraging that there is every sign of great life in the whole area of governor training. Again, I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, said about this. This is anticipated in the new, and widely welcome duty proposed in Clause 43. Given governors' own clear interest in receiving appropriate training, the Government see no need to alter the wording of Clause 43 or to construct some new central agency by means of a new clause. I believe that this would add to bureaucracy. It would be an unnecessary drain on resources. It may even stifle some of the welcome diversity that is now emerging. I hope that the Committee will be reassured that we are mindful of the points that are raised, and that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw these amendments.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I have found that a helpful and constructive reply, and I shall certainly read carefully what the noble Baroness said. I noticed that the brief that she was reading from at one stage was written on the assumption that the central advisory unit was prescriptive rather than advisory. She herself observed that this was the case, and what we were proposing was advisory rather than setting central standards. I think that that is an important distinction which we ought to have made more clear in moving the amendments.
I was also encouraged to learn from her, and it was due to my ignorance that I did not know beforehand, that there had been so many applications for grants under the education support grant. I wonder whether she feels able to say whether the pilot project, which was so successful, would now be extended to cover all local education authorities and a wider range of projects. I do not know whether that is something which the noble Baroness feels able to answer now or whether she would prefer to write to me, having read what I have said. I am happy to leave it on that basis. I believe that we are not far apart on these matters and I am sure that the intention is in the right place. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment. by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 39 [Recoupment]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 88:
Page 41, line 11, after ("amount") insert ("reflecting the average cost of provision to the providing authority").
The noble Lord said: We now turn to the complex area of recoupment among local authorities for educational expenditure, and I have to say immediately that I am by no means an expert on this subject. I understand that it is an area in which a certain number of people in the Department of Education and Science are expert and a large number of other people are happy to leave it to them, so anything I say about recoupment I say with considerable diffidence. If I may, I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 88 and 89, and I should like to treat them as probing amendments because my understanding of the situation may be totally wrong.
As I read it, it appears that there are two ways in which the Government can determine the basis on which recoupment takes place. As I understand Clause 39, the Government's intention first of all is that wherever possible there should be agreement between the authorities concerned about the level of recoupment. I think we can all be agreed on that; but it says that if there is no agreement about the level of recoupment the Secretary of State shall lay down regulations to cover the level of recoupment.
There are two ways of doing it. One would be the average cost of provision to the providing authority, and the other would be the marginal cost of provision. As I understand it, the marginal cost of provision could lead to difficulties, either when the actual level of provision varies greatly between one local authority and another, or where the unit costs are substantially
438
different, as for example where you have an inner city authority, let us say the Inner London Education Authority (which has the additional costs of London weighting), the additional costs very often of higher rateable values and higher rates, and higher costs of expenditure, provision of ancillary staff, and so on.
The intention of this amendment is to see whether the Government can be a little more precise than they have been in Clause 39; to see whether it is possible to reflect the necessary differences in costs between different authorities; and to see whether there is any way of making clearer to local authorities the way in which recoupment costs are going to be settled by the Secretary of State. I beg to move.
Baroness Hooper: I am very happy to start by agreeing with the noble Lord opposite that this is an extremely complex area. The purpose of Clause 39, as I understand it, is to put beyond doubt the legality of the existing inter-authority payments committee system which has been operating successfully for many years. It will also allow the Secretary of State to use his default powers to bolster that system where appropriate by giving directions based on national average costs. This system inevitably contains an element of rough justice, but I think it is to be preferred to one based on actual costs because of its administrative simplicity and because it provides a better balance between the interests of the home and the providing authority.
As I understand the noble Lord's amendments. the average costs which he suggests should be reflected would, in fact, be the average between the providing and the home authority, whereas, as I said, the acknowledged system under the inter-authority payments committee system reflects the national average. Therefore, the amendments appear to frustrate the purpose of the clause and should he resisted.
I do not know if I have helped to clarify, but perhaps not, judging by the look on the noble Lord's face.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am grateful to the noble Baroness, but what she says is not in accordance with my understanding of the way in which the inter-authority payments committee actually operates. I understood that it was not a single national level but that it was an agreed and negotiated level of recoupment which includes a London weighting in the consideration. Therefore, if there is a recoupment between the Inner London Education Authority with its necessarily highest costs and another neighbouring authority, the London weighting as applied to ILEA's costs would be taken into account under existing arrangements; but there is no assurance that it would be taken into account in the arrangements as proposed by the Bill. However, this is a technical matter, and rather than detain the Committee with this I would prefer to read what the noble Baroness has said. I am sure she will wish to write to me if there is any difference of understanding or of evidence. I think it is preferable if I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 89 not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 87:
Page 41, line 19, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
(" (b) further education of a kind such that expenditure on its provision would fall within paragraph 6 of Schedule 10 to the Local Government Planning and Land Act 1980.")
The noble Lord said: This is on the same subject but it is not quite such a technical amendment, although the wording of it does seem to be totally technical. Certainly, when I first looked at ways of achieving what we wanted to do I was amazed that there was no clearer way of producing it. The intention of the amendment—I hope we have got it right—is to extend the recoupment system to adult education and not just to advanced further education. The reasons for this are more than technical because it is increasingly recognised, not only by the Department of Education and Science and the education community as a whole but also by those concerned with training in the Manpower Services Commission and elsewhere, that there is no longer a hard and fast line to be drawn between advanced further education and vocational education and training. There is a somewhat illogical division between the education and training sectors in our society and government. I am not in any way arguing for a Department of Education and Training, in case anybody should draw that conclusion. While we have differences in the organisation of different aspects of what is after all a whole, which is the determination in our society to have a better educated and trained adult population and workforce, it seems illogical for adult education to be excluded from the recoupment provisions in the Bill, and I hope that Amendments Nos. 87 and 90 will achieve the objective of extending the basis of recoupment. I hasten to say that it should not involve any increase in public expenditure because it is a balancing out between local authorities. I beg to move.
6.30 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: The effect of these amendments would be to extend the principle of automatic recoupment enshrined in subsection (1) to all types of further education except those financed from the advanced further education pool, as the noble Lord has explained. The Government are keen to remove the undesirable restrictions and anomalies in the present voluntary recoupment arrangements for non-advanced further education and, in particular, to eliminate the difference in the arrangements relating to those pursuing post-complusory schooling and those seeking further education in a college. However, we do not believe that automatic recoupment is appropriate for all types of further education for a number of reasons.
I recognise that the amendment's objective is to include within the scope of the automatic recoupment provisions non-vocational adult education. That is something that the Government are opposed to in principle. The Government believe that the generality of non-vocational adult education students should make a significant contribution to the cost of that type of provision. However, authorities' policies on the degree of subsidy to be offered for adult education vary widely, and the Government would not wish to create a situation in which authorities which themselves provide little or no subsidy for non-vocational adult
440
education classes were forced to accept recoupment charges from authorities pursuing a policy of high subsidy.
Another significant factor in the Government's thinking is the rate of change and development in the types of provision offered on non-advanced further education and the mechanisms for financing them. Increasingly, and at all levels within the further education service, training provision is being offered to employers on a full-cost recovery basis. Other types of provision—for example, off-the-job training under the YTS—are still in the process of development, and the local authorities are themselves considering whether recoupment arrangements are apropriate and what form they may take. In that developing situation the Government consider it sensible to define the scope of the free-trade provision in regulations rather than have a definition written into the primary legislation which may prove inappropriate or inadequate in a relatively short space of time.
We also need to consider the intention of recoupment arrangements with the system for assessing authorities' needs as part of the distribution of rate support grant. Our proposals are designed to be consistent with the existing rate support grant system but would also give scope for changes to respond to alterations in the system for financing local government. That flexibility would be lacking if the amendments were accepted. In the hope of maintaining maximum flexibility in this matter, I ask your Lordships to reject the amendments.
Lord Alexander of Potterhill: I wonder whether I could ask the noble Baroness the Minister to reconsider this matter. I think that adult education is excluded because it is not concerned with vocational training, and that is true. However, if we look far enough into the future it could become an important sector of education. The likelihood is that with the advance of technology the working week will become substantially reduced. The idea that people will be utterly happy about that will depend entirely on their capacity to do things when they are not working. It is 20 years since I set up an adult education body because I was worried about that. I am even more worried about it now because the prospect of what I am suggesting is much closer.
There is no reasonable doubt that the concept of the 40-hour working week will not be sustained for the next 10 years. We must prepare for retirement. People will not be happy if it just comes and they have not prepared for it. We need adult education to help people. It is important that the education service should provide people with the opportunity to develop interests and skills, not necessarily for work or production but so that they can live happily. I therefore ask the noble Baroness the Minister to look at this matter again, because I do not think that it is as simple as the Bill suggests.
Baroness Hooper: I can reassure the noble Lord by saying that this is a subject which is generally considered to be important and the Government will continue to look at it. In my original response I explained that we see this as a developing situation. That is why we seek the maximum flexibility, which we feel the amendments do not necessarily provide.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am glad that the noble Baroness felt able to start to heed the wise words of the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Potterhill, because what he said is true. The distinction between vocational and non-vocational education is no longer a tenable distinction from the point of view of statute law when we have, as we have now and shall have in the future, a population, many members of which do not have access to a full-time job and whose working life will change in ways they do not expect and do not want, and who face retirement earlier than they would wish and without the preparation that they would wish to have for retirement.
We see a growth in our service industries at the expense of manufacturing industry. That growth will certainly include a growth of leisure industries, for which adult education of the type that we understand is probably a more relevant preparation than some of the stricter vocational training which falls within the scope of automatic recoupment.
When we look at those changes over decades and not years, it will be seen in due course that the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, has it right, and that increasingly that distinction will not be possible and the Government will not be able to sustain it. I was equally unconvinced by the argument that some local authorities provide more support for non-vocational education than others and that therefore it would be unfair to those which choose to provide a lower level of support.
I remind the noble Baroness that she successfully resisted my previous amendments which provided a basis upon which recoupment could be calculated. As she did successfully resist them, the amount is to be determined in accordance with the direction given by the Secretary of State. It is therefore in the Government's hands to set the recoupment at a level which avoids the injustice which the noble Baroness was pointing out.
I am not satisfied by the Government's answer. I hope that the Government will be able to go further than the noble Baroness did in her response to the noble Lord, Lord Alexander. I would certainly welcome, as I am sure he would, any indication of further thinking between now and a later stage of the Bill. Failing that, it may well be a matter to which we shall feel it necessary to come back. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 90 not moved.]
Clause 39 agreed to.
Lord Kilmarnock Lord Kilmarnock moved Amendment No. 90ZA:
After Clause 39, insert the following new clause:
("Costs of establishing new voluntary schools.
Where any persons submit to the Secretary of State, under subsection (2) of section 13 of the Education Act 1980, proposals for the establishment by them, or by persons whom they represent, of a new school and for its maintenance by the local education authority as a voluntary school, the Secretary of State shall by order direct that the whole of the cost incurred in the establishment of the school as would, apart from the order, fall to be defrayed by the persons who establish it, shall be defrayed by the local education authority, provided that he is convinced that the establishment of such a school is a desirable addition to the range of educational provisions available within the local education authority area.").
The noble Lord said: I think I should start by admitting that this amendment is technically defective. If I did not do so, the noble Earl would, I am sure, point it out to me. But I think I am right in saying that it should refer to Section 13 of the Education Act 1980 and not to the 1944 Act. But I hope I shall be forgiven by the Committee for that lapse, as this is simply a probing amendment designed to explore the attitude of the Government to the proposal which it contains.
There is undoubtedly a crisis in education at present and a sign of this crisis is the philosophical debate raging about where power and control over education should lie. There are forces at work, not only in the Conservative Party, urging that even greater involvement by the Secretary of State is the way ahead. The latest idea for Crown schools, for example, is merely an extension of the highly interventionist style of the present Secretary of State whether in regard to exams, the curriculum or the quality of teachers.
There is an alternative approach or philosophy, which is one that the Alliance supports, and which sees the strength of the education system as residing in local control and decentralisation. Already within the maintained sector there is an alternative type of school, particularly in inner city areas. The voluntary sector, mainly through denominational schools, remains popular and successful. In these schools, there seems to be perhaps an additional quality arising, it could be, from a certain inner coherence that comes from the religious dimension or from the spirit of the original founders. But it is difficult, if not impossible, for a group of people with some vision about education, but not necessarily denominational in origin, to come together to start a new school.
At present, as I understand it, new voluntary schools can be established with the maintenance being paid by local education authorities, but with at least 15 per cent. of the capital cost of setting up the school having to be met by those establishing the school. This 15 per cent. hurdle, or barrier, effectively prevents groups of people other than institutions with financial resources, such as churches, from being able to set up new schools in the voluntary sector.
The amendment seeks to answer that difficulty and it provides a mechanism whereby the Secretary of State, if he is convinced of the desirability and the necessity of doing this can, out of a special fund, provide that 15 per cent. of pump priming money. One can imagine that perhaps in some prosperous areas it would not be difficult for parents to come together to do that themselves; but in other areas, particularly within the inner cities, this might not be so easy. So the amendment is designed to get round that difficulty.
6.45 p.m.
I suggest that there is a real need for new voluntary non-fee paying and non-selective schools, especially in areas with problems. It is not just the local authorities, the churches or indeed the state that can have bright ideas about education or that can breathe new life into educationally deprived areas. Rather than developing an entirely new concept such as the Crown school, which the Government have floated or mooted, and which would presumably be centralist and selective,

443
why not adapt the system we already have by allowing the Secretary of State discretion to meet the 15 per cent. of the capital cost of founding a voluntary school from a special fund?
A new school in the voluntary sector which is founded from within the community with the parents as the driving force could add a new dimension to a local authority's provision, particularly if it is small in size. We should, I suggest, be willing to encourage experiments and new ideas along these lines but still within the maintained sector. The Secretary of State, on the advice of HMI, should be able to prime the pump of this process by some mechanism along the lines suggested in the amendment. I beg to move.
The Earl of Swinton: The noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, has explained that this is a probing amendment and that the intention behind it is to facilitate the establishment of new, small aided schools in inner-city areas, especially by parents, who may not be able to afford the promoters' financial responsibility for such schools. The Government very much sympathise with the thinking behind this amendment and I am sure it strikes a chord with many noble Lords. However, I do not believe the amendment provides the right answer, quite apart from the technical defects which the noble Lord himself admitted.
Aided schools have a greater degree of autonomy from the local education authority than other schools in the maintained sector. But that autonomy is in return for the governing body's or, in the case of a new school, the promoters' bearing certain financial liabilities. They are responsible for the capital costs of establishing the school and, thereafter, for external repairs and any capital alterations. They are eligible to receive 85 per cent. grant aid on such expenditure from the Secretary of State leaving the 15 per cent residue which is the subject of this amendment. Incidentally, I am not clear whether it is the noble Lord's intention that the governors' continuing liability for alterations and external repairs, once the school is in operation, is also to be borne by the LEA. The fact that they have to be responsible for that 15 per cent. is one of the reasons for the very success of aided schools.
The last part of the amendment seeks to restrict the concession to those new schools which the Secretary of State is convinced would be a desirable addition to the educational provision in the area. But every new school, of whatever type, whose establishment is approved by the Secretary of State would come within that description. All statutory proposals for new schools are decided on their merits, and there can be no question of a proposal being approved unless it would be a desirable addition to the educational provision in the area. The noble Lord might then argue that the role proposed for the Secretary of State could be made discretionary. But it would be highly invidious for the promoters of some new aided schools to have to find their 15 per cent. while, for others, this requirement was waived.
It is difficult to see how such a power could ever be exercised differentially. It would either lie unused or have the practical effect of reducing to nil the financial
444
liabilities of promoters and governors in respect of aided schools. That would not only have significant resource consequences; it would also do great damage to the foundations of the dual system which allows aided school governing bodies a measure of independence from LEAs in return for their financial contribution. Indeed, Section 15(2) of the 1944 Act currently allows the Secretary of State to grant aided status only if he is satisfied that the promoters are able and willing to meet their liabilities. There would thus be a quid, but no quo—in fact, there would be an awful lot of "quids" falling upon the head of the Government—and the continuation of that independence, which noble Lords on all sides of the House have supported, would be hard to justify.
I said that the Government are sympathetic to the noble Lord's arguments. What, then, he might well ask, are we doing about them? We have brought forward this Bill, one explicit aim of which is to increase the scope for parents beneficially to influence their children's education—in all schools, not just those in inner-city areas.
Under the Bill's various provisions, parents will be able to play a greater part than ever before in the running of their children's schools. They will have greater representation on school governing bodies and so share in the enhanced and clarified responsibilities which the Bill guarantees for such bodies. Only a minority of parents can become school governors, but Clauses 24 and 25 offer new opportunities for all parents to become more involved in the work of their children's schools. The annual parents' meeting will offer a forum for parents to probe local policies and to make their feelings known to to the governors, the head teacher and the LEA: those feelings cannot just be ignored. The Bill as a whole will serve to make LEAs and schools more responsive to the needs of the parents and the wider communities they serve.
In inviting the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment, I repeat that I understand his arguments but am clear that his amendment is not the right way to go about things since it would do substantial damage to the basis of our highly valued dual system. Instead, I ask him not to under-estimate the impact this Bill's provisions will have on the life of all schools through harnessing parents' natural and special interest in their children's progress.
Lord Kilmarnock: I am grateful to the noble Earl for the care he has taken in his reply. I have accepted from the outset the technical deficiency of the amendment. The noble Earl seemed to be concerned about the possibility of a sheep and goats result from this amendment in that it would be difficult to distinguish between those parents' groups which should be assisted and those which should not. It could be done by establishing special funds for special areas where there is a genuine crisis, which is I think almost universally acknowledged, particularly in the inner city areas. You could do it on an urban aid basis. Therefore, there would not be discrimination between those and perhaps more prosperous middle-class areas.
The noble Earl referred to the "quids" and the "quos". He said that this would cost a lot of "quids" and that these "quids" would be falling on the head of the Government. It is obviously true that no

445
educational initiative designed to meet the disastrous situation in areas of educational deprivation can be taken for nothing. That is clearly true. There would have to be some new money for an initiative of this kind. If the Government did a cost-benefit analysis of educationally deprived areas and tried to sort out what would be the results of having good, small, popularly supported schools in these areas, they would find that the overall real cost was not that great.
I am slightly disappointed. I am genuinely grateful to the noble Earl for saying that he appreciates my motives. I am slightly disappointed that the Government are not prepared to be a little more imaginative about this. I shall certainly not press it, but I shall go away, read the debate—the debate has been between the noble Earl and myself—think about it and come back possibly with some other proposal along these lines at Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 40 agreed to.
Clause 41 [compensation payable by governing body on change from controlled to aided status]:
The Earl of Swinton The Earl of Swinton moved Amendment No. 90A:
Page 45, line 7, leave out from ("as") to ("to"), in line 8, and insert ("the Secretary of State thinks fit having regard").
The noble Earl said: In moving Amendment No. 90A, perhaps I may also speak to Amendment No. 91 standing in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London. I think that his concern was to clarify the basis of the valuation of the compensation to be paid by the governing body to the LEA. The Government share that concern. We recognise that valuation is not an exact science and our intention in this clause, which is, I think, made clear by our amendment, is that the Secretary of State, in making any determination under subsection (1)(b), will be guided, but not constrained, by the current value of the buildings in question. We intend his discretion here to be quite wide because we feel that that is most likely to achieve the fairest result.
I understand that it is feared that there could be confusion over whether the valuation should be by reference to the current use of the property or to the development value. There is provision, in subsection (3), for the Secretary of State to take advice on the valuation, and his appointed adviser would normally be the district valuer. Some of your Lordships, and, I am sure, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford, will be familiar with the provisions of paragraphs 7 and 8 to the 1946 Act, which require similar sorts of valuations. On many occasions we need the assistance of the district valuer in these cases, and he appears to have had no difficulty in producing a figure.
However, the important point is that because of the many variables there can be in individual cases we do not intend the Secretary of State to be bound by a particular formula when making his determination, though we do intend, as our amendment indicates, that he should have to take account of the valuation. Against this background I hope your Lordships, and especially the right reverend Prelate, will accept the
446
Government's amendment in preference to Amendment No. 91. I beg to move.
The Lord Bishop of Hereford: I am grateful to the noble Earl the Minister for what he has said. Our concern was that there should be some kind of guidelines about valuation, on which there clearly might be confusion if there was different practice from one area to another. In view of what the noble Earl has said, it is not the intention to move Amendment No. 91.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Bishop of London The Lord Bishop of London had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 91:
Page 45, line 8, after ("current") insert ("use").
The Lord Bishop of Hereford: In the unavoidable absence of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London, Amendment No. 91 is not moved.
[Amendment No. 91 not moved.]
Clause 41, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 42 [Reports to Secretary of State]:
On Question, Whether Clause 42 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I read this clause with some incredulity and I looked back at the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum to see what provision was being made for extra civil servants in the Department of Education and Science to read all these reports to the Secretary of State. The governing body of every county, voluntary and maintained special school and establishment maintained for further education shall make reports and returns tc the Secretary of State. I cannot believe that the Secretary of State will read or have anybody read for him reports from every school and every further education establishment in the country.
I am encouraged (or, if you like, discouraged) in that view by the knowledge that the Department of Education and Science or its predecessor was originally set up in the 19th century to receive the reports of Her Majesty's Inspectors. That was the only original purpose. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, is not here to confirm my history, that the only purpose of the department was to receive the reports of Her Majesty's Inspectors. Yet in recent years, because it was an excessive burden on the department to receive the reports of Her Majesty's Inspectors, that reporting has been dispensed with.
If, because of pressure of work, the department is not able to undertake its primary and original task of receiving reports from inspectors, how on earth will it receive reports from every county, voluntary and maintained special school, and what use will be made of those reports? I suggest that the Government have fashioned a rod for their own back. If the Government are determined to proceed with this course, I ask them to tell us truthfully what use will be made of the reports.
The Earl of Swinton: I find myself in difficulty, because I thought that the noble Lord was going to oppose this clause for a completely different reason

447
than the one he has given. I thought that he might be opposing it because he felt that it was a crafty route for the Secretary of State to bypass local education authorities and to obtain information about schools or colleges and governing bodies behind his back.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: As if he could think that!
The Earl of Swinton: I cannot imagine how the noble Lord could not have thought of that, but he did not!
I am of course well aware that Section 92 of the 1944 Act already requires LEAs to provide the Secretary of State with such information as he may require for the purpose of the exercise of his functions under the Education Acts. Here are the reasons. Sometimes, the information sought is for a particular policy initiative and is then requested through a circular sent to all local education authorities. I must stress that we agree that it would be quite inappropriate for information of that sort to be requested from individual governing bodies. I agree with the noble Lord that it would also be totally outside the capacity of the DES and the Welsh Office to cope with thousands of individual replies.
On other occasions, however, the information sought from an LEA concerns a particular school. That arises particularly where the Secretary of State is investigating a complaint under either Section 68 or Section 99 of the 1944 Act. Those sections are concerned respectively with unreasonable behaviour by LEAs or governing bodies in the exercise of their functions and with breaches of the statutory responsibilities of either LEAs or governing bodies. The Committee will note that both sections refer explicity to governing bodies, so where the Secretary of State is investigating a complaint against a governing body under either of those sections, clearly he needs to be empowered to obtain information from the governing body.
On such occasions it would not be appropriate for the information to be obtained through the agency of the LEA. It is not unknown for a complaint against the governing body to be made by the LEA. It would clearly not be fair for the governing body's side of the case to have to be submitted via the LEA with whom it was in disagreement. If the LEA were not involved in the complaint, which might relate to a matter wholly the responsibility of the governors, it again seems inappropriate for the LEA to act as the information-gathering agency. Either it would put its own gloss on the information—in which case it would no longer be a true reflection of the governing body's view of the matter—or it would simply send it on—in which case it would be adding a quite unnecessary layer to the proceedings and increasing the time taken to resolve the matter.
I can give the assurance that the Government do not intend to use that new power to cut out local education authorities from those matters on which it would properly be their responsibility to report to the Secretary of State. I believe that I have given the reasons why such information is necessary from time to time and why it is to be allowed to be gathered in and not made compulsory; I assure the noble Lord
448
of that. He will be delighted to know that it would be embarrassing my Secretary of State extremely if all that information was sent in just as a matter of course. Having heard that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will not oppose the Question that the clause stand part of the Bill.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am sorry that the noble Earl should think that I am so distrustful of the Government's motives that I would believe that they would wish to bypass local education authorities in an unjustified way. I have great faith in the noble Earl on a number of matters.
With the assurance that the Secretary of State will not be seeking reports from every county, voluntary and maintained special school, but will only be using that power in the way that the noble Earl described—to deal with particular needs for information from individual schools or possibly groups of schools, rather than from schools throughout the land—I am happy not to oppose the Question that Clause 42 stand part of the Bill.
Clause 42 agreed to.
Clause 43 [Information and training for governors]:
[Amendment No. 92 not moved.]
Clause 43 agreed to.
The Earl of Swinton: This might be a convenient moment to break. In moving that the House do now resume, I suggest that we do not return to this Bill until five minutes past eight o'clock. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Public Order Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Museums and Galleries (Prohibition of Admission Charges) Bill [H.L.]
7.5 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Jenkins of Putney.)
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, before the Question is put, may I say that when this Bill was debated on Second Reading there were many pleas that we should allow it to go to Committee so that it could be carefully discussed in detail? When it first came to Committee, I ventured to protest that it came on very late at night and that that was unsuitable for a Bill whose provisions all of us who attended thought were important.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, accepted that point with his usual courtesy and put himself in the hands of the House. I have no doubt that he was

449
correct in interpreting the feelings of the House; that as we were all there and as a Second Reading of a prior Bill had been withdrawn, we should go on with the Committee stage. As I have said, I believe that the noble Lord was right in saying that that was the feeling of the House.
Nevertheless, there was very soon an early Division in which there was no quorum in the Lobbies. As a result, the Committee stage was then adjourned. The Bill now comes before your Lordships with a great deal to discuss in the dinner interval only. I certainly do not oppose the Motion that your Lordships should now go into Committee on the Bill, but I say that it is a most inconvenient way of dealing with a matter of considerable importance. My view is that we cannot possibly finish the Committee stage this evening in the dinner hour. If the remaining Committee proceedings are either going to be in a dinner hour or very late at night—and some of us have to travel a considerable distance because we attach importance, like the noble Lord, to these matters—it is not treating the subject matter, to which we all attach great importance, with the seriousness that it deserves.
This Bill cannot possibly pass into law this Session. However, there is the duty on your Lordships' Chamber to see that it is put in proper order and not left indefinite and with questions outstanding. That means that there must be serious discussion in Committee. I venture to say only this to the noble Lord. If we cannot finish the Committee stage this evening perhaps he will be good enough, having made his point on Second Reading although in a very sparsely attended House, to call it a day and leave the Bill for the remainder of the Session and, with his usual enthusiasm, introduce it again next Session. It is really a most inconvenient course to have the Committee stage either very late at night, as it was on our previous Sitting, or in the dinner hour when there is a great deal of great importance to discuss.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I hope that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, will allow us to make progress. A private Member, of course, as the noble and learned Lord knows, is in no position to select time. He has to take the time that is available to him. In all the circumstances I hope that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, will, as I think he has already indicated, allow us to go ahead in the hope that we make good progress in the time available to us.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, I think the protest of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, is well justified. It is an important Bill. It is a fact that, whoever is responsible, the Bill was pushed in at the end of the day when it was unreasonable to expect a reasonable House to deal with it. Now we have come to the Committee stage, having progressed through Second Reading, and we find that it is in the dinner hour when, of necessity, it is confined to a period of time when one cannot hope to do justice to the number of amendments on the Marshalled List.
While I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, that it is not for a private Member to arrange the allocation of time for these matters, perhaps he will forgive me if I say that private Members, in trying to work the parliamentary system as it is, have certain
450
responsibilities. I have always argued that private Members' responsibility in this field is not to use the Private Member's Bill procedure for matters which are of full national consequence. The procedure carries responsibilities and powers that are not within the realm of private Members to adjust to their time.
The Private Member's Bill procedure is a valuable one but, in my judgment, it should be used on matters which do not involve the whole of what would be national policy on an issue but should be on matters of amending existing legislation or inviting legislation. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, in wanting to implement his very strong views on this important national matter, did wrong in not first of all convincing his own party which has the power to decide certain allocations of parliamentary time, that he had a good case so that this important issue could have been given, under the normal procedures, the time that it deserves. Therefore, I think that the protest by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, is well justified and I hope that a lesson will be learned both by Members on the Front Benches, who arrange the times, and by Back-Bench Members when they choose subjects on which to use the Private Member's Bill procedure.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Jenkins is perfectly in order to bring a Bill on this subject at any time that he wants. The noble lord, although he may have been in order, was quite wrong in spirit and sentiment in what he said.
We have now spent a quarter of an hour talking about whether the Committee stage should go ahead. May I suggest that if any noble Lord wants to move that the Committee stage should not go ahead he does so now; otherwise we should get on and not spend any more time talking about it?
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Order.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly on Clause 2.
[The LORD STRABOLGI in the Chair.]
Clause 2 [Prohibition of admission charges]:
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Strabolgi): In calling Amendment No. 1, I remind your Lordships that the debate upon it was adjourned at the previous Sitting pursuant to Standing Order 55. Unless, therefore, the noble Lord wishes to continue the debate, I shall now put the Question.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls Lord Harmar-Nicholls moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 11, at end insert ("without the approval of the Arts Council of Great Britain.").
The noble Lord said: We have already been reminded of what happened on the last occasion. There was not a quorum, so the amendment I had moved could not be accepted on a vote. Therefore, I shall now repeat my amendment, although I shall not necessarily repeat the whole of the argument.
Baroness Birk: Perhaps the noble Lord will give way. The point at which the proceedings came to an end was when all the debate had taken place and the Question had been put for a Division to take place. Surely, in view of what has now been said both by the noble Lord and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, it should now be for the noble Lord to have the Question put, as the Chairman suggested as one of the alternatives. We all have Hansard before us. The noble Lord put his case very strongly and eloquently when we last sat, and I think it would be taking up his own time and that of the Committee to repeat it.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: I was in the process of saying that I did not intend to repeat my speech but since we had to adjourn on the previous Sitting because there was no one to hear my speech and, therefore, insufficient Members for it to become effective, it seems to me reasonable that now noble Lords are present who have the authority to do something about it they should know what the argument is all about. I intend to push my amendment again to a vote. It is as well that the people I suggest should join me in the Lobby should know what the argument is about.
The argument is clear. This Private Member's Bill removes from the trustees of museums and galleries (trustees who are eminent and illustrious from every point of view) the right given to them under an Act that was passed by both Houses of Parliament in 1972 to decide how they should obtain money to carry out their functions as trustees, in addition to the grants given by government. They have instituted schemes such as opening shops, and so on, and in some cases making a charge or asking for donations in order, as they see it, to carry out their functions as trustees most efficiently.
This Bill removes that power from them. It was a principle decided when we voted on Second Reading. That vote was marginal—indeed I believe 34 votes carried the day. It did not truly reflect on such an important matter what I consider to be the real view of this House. One had to accept the principle because the Second Reading received a majority and, under the procedures of the House, that principle had to be accepted as being the desire of the House.
However, in Committee it is the right and duty of Members who feel that that principle is a bad principle and ought not to be allowed to go through in its full form, to try, if they feel strongly about it, to amend it to a point where the objectionable removal of all the powers from all the trustees is replaced with something which does not remove those powers, which recognises the principle of the Second Reading vote but which retains some powers for the trustees to carry out their functions as we expected them to do when they were appointed as trustees.
On the basis that our Second Reading vote means that the trustees should not have complete power to charge or to ask for donations, my amendment proposes that where the trustees consider it right to charge in the interests of maintaining the museum at its proper level of excellence, as every other country does and as Apsley House and the Tower of London do one could give a whole list of places where it has
452
been accepted that people who enjoy viewing and learning from treasures should pay—they should be able to charge only if the Arts Council does not disapprove of it. This really means an extra tier of decision before the general principle of making no charge is breached. So the amendment does not move away completely from the principle decided on Second Reading: it makes use of powers possessed by trustees—trustees whose standing is such that they should have that responsibility.
In the debate that took place prior to the Committee being adjourned my noble friend Lord Eccles, who, in 1972, introduced the Act under which the powers were given to the trustees, said that he did not like my amendment. I was arguing that the trustees could have powers to charge if the Arts Council agreed. My noble friend said:
"If, however, one compares the councillors of the Arts Council with the distinguished trustees of museums, it would clearly be ridiculous to give the Arts Council power to override the museum trustees".—[Official Report, 20/3/86; col. 1123.]
That is not what my amendment does. However as one or two people may have been influenced, as rightly they should, by the eminence of my noble friend Lord Eccles, I should add that the Arts Council is not being given the power to charge. The power to charge would still be left with the trustees. It would be a power that could not be implemented unless it had gone through the further sieve of the Arts Council saying that from an arts point of view it did not find the proposal objectionable. I feel that this is going some way along the lines of the Bill itself, while preserving the vital ingredient of allowing the trustees to carry out their function, which was the intention when they were appointed.
My noble friend on the Front Bench, speaking on behalf of the Government, did not altogether accept my arguments on the adjourned Committee stage. He said that,
"it does not fulfil the important point of principle that trustees should be free to exercise their judgment in the discharge of their responsibilities."—[Official Report 20/3/86; col. 1123.]
I agree with my noble friend. I would much prefer that the trustees, appointed for their quality, should have the power given to them under the 1972 Act to make the decision and to implement it without having to refer to anyone else. The principle that my noble friend wanted to preserve means that he would not take any account of the Bill we are now considering. I am saying that half a loaf is better than no bread. Rather than the trustees giving up the complete power under any circumstances to be able to do what they think right, I would settle for them having to satisfy themselves through having to obtain Arts Council agreement before the implementation could take place.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, criticised the merit of my argument. I had to remind him, and I remind your Lordships again now—it is the common sense of the argument—that I introduced to your Lordships' House the Theatre Trust Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, is vice-chairman of the Theatre Trust. The power of the Theatre Trust is that any planning authority has to have the agreement of the trust before planners can carry out what they think right in regard to altering the use of anything used as

453
a theatre. That principle accords exactly with my amendment. One is leaving the powers with the trustees and making them go through another sieve to make sure that they are not doing anything outrageous and wrong. One is not quite achieving the principle that my noble friend wanted, but it is a step nearer to what we believe right. By voting for the amendment that I shall be submitting in a moment, I believe that we shall be nearer to what my noble friend wanted.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Does the noble Lord wish to move the amendment?
Lord Harmer-Nicholls: I now formally move Amendment No. 1 in my name.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: Before pursuing the matter, the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, should have asked himself why, on the last occasion, he failed to secure any support from his own Front Bench. He failed to secure the support of the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, who was the architect of theatre charging. If anyone is enthusiastic about theatre charging it is the noble Viscount. The reason is that the amendment is a nonsense. I hesitate to suggest to the noble Lord that it is deliberately a wrecking amendment: however, I have not heard anything in my whole parliamentary experience that sounded more like a wrecking amendment.
The noble Lord must be aware that the Arts Council has nothing to do with the matter. The noble Lord is trying to place upon the Arts Council a duty that the council would reject out of hand. The moneys that go to the museums affected by the Bill come direct from the Ministry. They pass nowhere near the Arts Council. To give the council a duty to intervene on a matter that is not within its purview is a function that it would reject out of hand.
Without further ado, I hope that noble Lords will recognise the amendment for what it is. Let us by all means have serious discussion upon the amendments which follow, but an amendment designed to destroy the Bill out of hand—a Bill that has already been given a Second Reading—is one that should not be allowed to waste your Lordships' time any longer.
Lord Annan: I am not entirely in accord with the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins. This is a perfectly reasonable amendment. The Bill is formed on a hypothesis. The hypothesis is that the trustees are pusillanimous, weak-kneed, incompetent and mean spirited because they do not really have the public interest at heart. 'That is the hypothesis on which the Bill is founded. I concede that, from some people's point of view, it is a reasonable hypothesis. People are perfectly entitled to take that view of trustees of our museums and galleries.
I would, however, suggest that there is another hypothesis. That is the advent of a new government which immediately falls into financial difficulties; there is a run on the pound; there is high inflation; and immediately there are demands from the unions, understandably, whose members work in museums and galleries. All this will lead to a substantial diminution in real terms of the grant that the museums and galleries receive. This is an hypothesis. I do not
454
believe that it is any less reasonable an hypothesis than the hypothesis on which the Bill is founded. If, however, this hypothesis is taken the amendment tries to say: "Look, the trustees will be placed in an impossible position. They have not got enough money, but they cannot go to the government for more. If the government give them more, it will be wiped out by increasing inflation". What are they going to do? They must be able to appeal to someone. I take it that the point of the amendment is that the Arts Council is the only body to which they could appeal. The Arts Council is skilled in these matters. It faces them every day in regard to its own clients. Therefore, to my mind this is a perfectly understandable amendment to put forward. If the noble Lord moves it, I shall vote for it.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: It has been moved.
Lord Belstead: I ought to make clear from the Government Front Bench that, with regret, I do not support my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls on this amendment. I find that characteristically he is being too reasonable on this occasion. I must confess to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, that on behalf of the Government I disagree fundamentally with this Bill. I therefore do not believe that there should be any seive or court of appeal of the kind which has just been suggested. I believe that the trustees, who are distinguished people, should be completely free to exercise their judgment in the discharge of their responsibilities. But I must confess that I do not believe this amendment is a waste of time. I do not believe that it is a wrecking amendment. Nonetheless it would not be fair to the Committee if I did not say that I cannot support my noble friend in the Division Lobby, for the reason I have given.
7.31 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 32; Not-Contents, 35.

DIVISION NO. 3

CONTENTS

Annan, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Beloff, L.

Layton, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L. [Teller.]

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.

Butterworth, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Mersey, V.

Colville of Culross, V.

Mottistone, L.

Colwyn, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Dormer, L.

Newall, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Glanusk, L.

Sandford, L.

Gridley, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Halsbury, E.

Swinfen, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L. [Teller.]

Teviot, L.

Henley, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Hives, L.

Vickers, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ardwick, L. [Teller.]

Dean of Beswick, L.

Attlee, E.

Denning, L.

Birk, B.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Ennals, L.

455

Hampton, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Rea, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Rhodes, L.

Jeger, B.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L. [Teller.]

Shackleton, L.

Kennet, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Kissin, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Lockwood, B.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Tordoff, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Underhill, L.

MacLeod of Fuinary, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

McNair, L.

Ypres, E.

Phillips, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls Lord Harmar-Nicholls moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 12, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 2.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I should like to know whether Amendment No. 3 is being taken with this amendment. There seems to be a large overlap. Amendment No. 3, which stands in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, proposes, first, what Amendment No. 2 wants to do, and it then inserts something in its place.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: I prefer my amendment to be taken separately. From reading the words of the amendment, I see the point which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, is making, but I believe that as regards this matter we ought to have a very clear message from the Committee. The clear message of my amendment is that subsection (2) should not be allowed to stand in the Bill. The argument is similar to that put forward as regards Amendment No. 1, except that I believe that if we let this subsection go through we shall be making this House look rather ridiculous in the light of the practical common sense of how any organisation must be run—and certainly organisations as important as the museums and galleries.
Under subsection (2), not only can they not make a charge—that was decided by a very narrow majority on the last vote, which we lost, and for the time being until Report stage we must live with it—but that subsection, which I want to erase, goes even further than that, because the trustees of the museums will not even be allowed to ask people to make a voluntary contribution. They will not even have the power to point out the importance of the museums and the galleries. They will not be given the power to point out how vital it is that they should have money in order to replenish their possessions. They will not have power to allow those people who derive enjoyment and benefit from museums and galleries and who leave them with a desire to want to maintain them, to make a contribution to ensure that they are maintained.
I believe that to appoint trustees of the eminence of the trustees who sit on the boards of these museums and galleries, and to say that they shall not be allowed the judgment to decide how they obtain their finances in terms of advertising the value of what they have on offer and encouraging people to make a voluntary contribution, is nonsense.
456
I am quite certain that the Bill will not be allowed to go through both Houses of Parliament. I am convinced that it will never become the law of the land. It is an exercise in the furtherance of the views of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins. I greatly respect his assiduity and tenacity as regards the views which he holds, with most of which I rarely find myself in agreement. However, to satisfy him by having his view placed upon the record, even for a short time, would result in your Lordships' Committee being made to look rather stupid. It would be rather stupid for the Committee to agree to this type of provision so that, even for a temporary period, it appeared to be the law of the land. The idea of not being able to allow these eminent trustees even to accept contributions is, as was said by the noble Lord on the Cross-Benches, almost an insulting attack upon the integrity of the people who do so.
The Victoria and Albert Museum already implements a request for people to make voluntary contributions when they go into that museum. The chairman of the Victoria and Albert Museum is the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, who was the Leader of this House and whose eminence is such that he is expected to give guidance on matters which affect the world and the nations of the world. However, in the report issued only last week in defence of the Victoria and Albert Museum's achievements, he sets out that it has taken this action and the success which is flowing from it. For a Private Member's Bill to suggest that the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and his fellow trustees shall not have the power to be able to do this is to my mind rather stupid if it receives full acquiescence by a vote of this House.
Therefore, it is with some confidence—whatever happened on the last amendment—that I now move my second amendment, which would remove subsection (2), which places this insulting embargo upon the trustees of our museums and galleries.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: Since this Bill has been introduced. the Museums Association, which I think all Members will agree is the representative body of museums, has carried out a survey of its membership. By an overwhelming majority it has decided to support the Bill. It decided to do so because it regards what is happening at, for example, the Victoria and Albert, as something which ought not to have happened there and certainly should not be allowed to happen anywhere else. That great institution is being brought into considerable disrepute by the nonsense which is taking place at the so-called voluntary turnstiles. Therefore, it is essential to the purpose of upholding what the Museums Association recognises as the reputation and standing of our national institutions that we get rid of this absurd nonsense which reflects no credit upon the Victoria and Albert.
I gravely doubt whether the noble Lord, Lord Carrington—who, if my memory serves me correctly, is no longer chairman of the Victoria and Albert—would approve of this. I think that this nonsense was introduced by the present chairman, who I believe to be a Mr. Conrad.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: Only last week we had the report from the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, chairman of the Victoria and Albert trustees. The noble Lord was answering the museum's critics. Of course he is chairman. I should like to know the name of the body which the noble Lord says held this vote. Is it the one standing outside the Victoria and Albert with placards, trying to prevent the trustees doing what they think is right?
Lord Jenkins of Putney: I am open to correction. I may be mistaken, but we shall have to find out tomorrow. It may be that the report from which the noble Lord is reading refers to last year's business rather than to what has taken place recently, but we shall see. I am not absolutely certain that I am right, but I believe it to be the case.
The essential point is that museum people throughout the country are in favour of the Bill. Why are they in favour of it?—because in principle our great national institutions have always been open without charge to our people. What we are seeking to assert here are Victorian values. We are ensuring that there shall not be substituted an access charge, which I believe would be better than the nonsense which is being carried out at the Victoria and Albert. What is happening is that you go in, you are told how much you ought to pay and you are made to feel very mean and nasty if you do not pay it.
I am not against donations. I had planned to make this point as regards my amendment, but perhaps I should make it here and now. I am not against donations. Indeed, in a modest way I participate in them myself. However, I am against the erection of a notional charge before you can get into the museum—a statement in the museum, with donation boxes; a statement before you leave the museum saying that if you have enjoyed what you have seen, there is an opportunity to make a contribution. All this would be reasonable, but to erect a barrier—in effect a barrier against entry—would keep away precisely those people we have always said must be given free access to these museums. For that reason, I hope the Committee will agree not to accept the proposed amendment.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I abstained on the last Division, but I have no hesitation in supporting this amendment. On Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, described what was going on at the Victoria and Albert Museum as "squalid blackmail". Then your Lordships heard the experience of my noble friend Lord Perth, and the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, gave testimony to the same effect. There was obviously nothing going on there, so far as they experienced, which in any way justified the language of the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, or indeed what the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, has said today about the Victoria and Albert Museum.
The noble Lord said that museum people through-out the country were opposed to this because the tradition has been for free entry. That may be true of the main London museums and galleries, but it is certainly not true throughout the country. For example, in the North of England we have a counterpart of the Wallace Collection at the Bowes Museum
458
at Barnard Castle, which has a fine mixed collection of pictures and decorative art mirroring that of the Wallace Collection and in some respects exceeding it. It charges for admission. All except two of the museums and galleries in York charge for admission, and one of the exceptions makes a charge for car parking, which is difficult to find in York.
As for invitations to make a voluntary contribution, so far as my experience goes we have had that as long as I can remember. I cannot remember a time when that large coffer (filled with notes and coins) was not just at the entrance of the Tate Gallery to solicit contributions. It seems to me absurd to say that suddenly one must attach a notice to it. Similarly when the Tate Gallery was seeking to buy the Rodin carving of The Kiss voluntary contributions were solicited. That was immediately adjacent to the entry and exit, which of course are the same.
In my submission to the Committee it is intolerable to tell experienced trustees, appointed because of their knowledge and standing, that they shall place this or that placard next to any collecting box; that they must not have turnstiles, for example, to monitor entry so that they know how many people are coming to the museum; and if they have turnstiles they must not solicit contributions there. It is an intolerable insult to such people as we expect to be trustees and governors of museums and galleries. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, will press this to a Division, and I shall support him if he does.
Lord Annan: May I add one word before we divide on this? I am in favour of this amendment, but for a slightly different reason from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon. This provision has a nonsensical quality about it. You are not allowed to make any voluntary contributions on entry. Again the amendment that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, intends to move says:
"In this section the making of a charge for admission".
What about exit? Why should you not make a charge on exit? Indeed if this became law that would be the natural thing for trustees who were in distress to do. It is already done.
It is when the public are going out that they are asked for contributions by notices, by boxes and by other receptacles which solicit gifts from the public. But it would be perfectly possible and legal, if this Bill became law, to do precisely what the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, does not want done on entry, on exit. I therefore think that this provision has a real defect in drafting and in law.
Lord Swinfen: I should like to support this amendment, partly for the reasons mentioned by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. It is not unusual to see notices in the press of a masterpiece in danger of being sold abroad because we cannot raise the funds to buy it and keep it in this country. Anyone visiting a gallery would be precluded, under the Bill as now drafted, from helping by making a donation as they go in. If a major donor, who happens to be a busy man, arrives at the gallery and says "I have only 10 minutes, what do you want?", this would stop the director, as he takes him into the gallery, from saying, "I want some money from you". That would be an illegal act, as I read this Bill. Therefore, it is essential that this amendment be agreed to.
Lord Belstead: The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, in reply to my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls, said that there was a large body of support for the Bill. But as my noble friend Lord Swinfen has clearly shown, there are other views about this. I was glad that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, made the point—which as, I understand it, is absolutely right—that subsection (2) would force museum trustees to abandon their existing arrangements for charging for entry at outstations.
My advice is that some of the arrangements to which the noble and learned Lord drew attention have been operating successfully for more than 30 years. The noble Lord shakes his head, but I harbour the belief that the noble Lord is not right. If the noble Lord cares to do his homework he will find that there are long-standing arrangements in the outstations which the parent bodies have believed to have been right for many years.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: I can tell the noble Lord that when I was Minister for the Arts those arrangements continued during a period in which no charges were made at the central bodies. The reason for my shaking my head was not to deny that it occurred but to deny that it would be improper even if the Bill were in existence.
Lord Belstead: Perhaps the noble Lord can draw attention to the part of the Bill which would continue to make that proper.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: If necessary we shall put down an amendment to that effect.
Lord Belstead: As the Bill stands it would prevent outstations from charging. When we debated the Second Reading of the Bill the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, said that there were ways in which the museums could replace the money which his Bill, if it became law, would deny to them. Indeed he went further and said that we should no doubt be able to discuss the ways in which other moneys could be raised in Committee. I have been waiting to hear suggestions from the noble Lord as to how those other moneys could be raised, and I think that those suggestions could come on this amendment.
8 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: I have been waiting to hear the noble Lord say that the Government will recover a little generosity. It is time that we heard something about that, is it not?
Lord Belstead: May I remind the noble Lord that the money which has come from the Government to the Arts Council has gone up in real terms very considerably over recent years?
Lord Jenkins of Putney: I am talking about the museums.
Lord Belstead: Nonetheless, I am talking here about the Arts Council. Let us hear from the noble Lord where the alternative money, which will be denied by this Bill, will come from if all the museums, including the outstations, are refused the right to be allowed to
460
charge. The noble Lord invited us to discuss this matter in Committee. Now is the moment for the noble Lord to put forward his suggestions.
Baroness Birk: I wonder whether I can get a word in here? I was hoping to speak before the Minister, but he jumped up. First, I listened carefully to what my noble friend Lord Jenkins said. It was quite clear that he himself has moved some distance now from what was in the Bill. He said that he was agreeable to having voluntary contributions and perhaps having notices put up saying:
"If you have enjoyed your visit to this museum any contribution you would like to make would be welcome"—
or words to that effect. Therefore what we are discussing—I do not think he will disagree with me about this because we have discussed it—and what he is prepared to have are the voluntary contributions, which is the case in many museums all over the world where they do not make a charge.
When charges were imposed on museums in 1972 or 1973, when the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, was Minister for the Arts, there was no question then, so far as I remember, of getting agreement from the trustees of all the museums. It was a Government Act. The Government made a decision that there would be charges. Now it is the other way round, we hear protests that there should be complete freedom given to the trustees. What my noble friend is doing in this Bill is taking a line which fits a particular practice and philosophy and which he and a great many other people believe. But this does not do away with giving donations or contributions.
The Minister asked: "How, if you do not do this, are you going to finance it?" Up till now the experience of the Victoria and Albert Museum has not been so happy. The numbers going to the museum have dropped. The museum itself has altered its approach. I noticed the approach at the beginning when there was this pressure about which there have been many protests. This has now been dropped and although the turnstiles and people are still there to my knowledge there is no effort any more to try to persuade people to pay to go to the museum. One of the reasons why so many people are against charges is that one of the great traditions of the museums is that one can drop in for half an hour.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: Will the noble Baroness give way?
Baroness Birk: No, the noble Lord has had plenty of time. I shall not sit down now. One can drop in for half an hour; but many people will think twice about paying £2 for a short visit. This would be contrary to all the educational and other functions of the museums.
Lord Annan: Will the noble Baroness give way? I cannot follow the argument that she is making. I think she said that she was entirely agreeable to a request for voluntary donations being made when the public leave the building. Would it be legal if this Bill is passed to say: "We ask you, if you have enjoyed your visit, to make a contribution of £2"?
Baroness Birk: But it is not my Bill; it is my noble friend's Bill. I should not be in favour of putting a sum to it. Some people may give £5. Some foreigners may be used to charges in their museums and they may give more. I should leave the amount to the individuals. Where a request for a specific sum is made it could be hard on a family with four, six or eight people in the family. I should leave it like that or have other things which would attract people, like throwing coins in a fountain, making it an attractive proposition to contribute to the museum. This does not mean that this is different from the charges. From what my noble friend has said already I think he would be prepared to amend the Bill himself or accept a reasonable amendment, but not on the lines of some of the amendments that have been put down.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: Before the noble Baroness sits down, I should like to know where I stand. She used the word "we" on so many occasions in defending the Bill. Is it a Private Member's Bill or is it an official Opposition Bill? The noble Baroness is the spokesman for these matters. She is speaking from the Dispatch Box and from the Front Bench. Is it a Private Member's Bill sponsored by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, or are we dealing with the official Opposition who believe that the trustees should not have these powers, who believe that the commitment should be made by the Chancellor to cover all of the expenses that might occur? I think we ought to know where we are, particularly since the noble Baroness has already indicated a point which I do not think is fair, when she said that what had happened at the Victoria and Albert Museum had already shown that it was losing out. The report from the trustees issued only last week said:
"We are on target to achieve the £500,000 from donations we set for the first year, of which the voluntary contribution was part of our scheme".
Whose Bill is it? Is it the official Opposition's Bill? Does she stand by what she said against what the trustees themselves have reported? If she cannot, then I do not think the impression ought to be left on the Committee which she has left.
Baroness Birk: It is a Private Member's Bill. The party policy is against charges, but not against voluntary donations. I do not agree with some parts of my noble friend's Bill and he knows that as well as I do. Nevertheless, the question of contributions and donations is something which I certainly support and from what he has himself said this evening in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, he also supports in certain circumstances. But it is a Private Member's Bill.
Lord Swinfen: If, as the noble Baroness said, this is a Private Member's Bill and it is her party's policy to agree to voluntary donations, will she be going into the lobby in favour of the amendment?
Baroness Birk: I did not say it was the party's policy to agree or disagree. So far as I know that has not been worked out in detail yet. My own view is, and I stand by my view, to go along with the donations. But that is not what the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, was trying to do when he moved the amendment. He
462
goes further than that. As I understand it, he still wants the trustees to be able to decide whether they should make charges or not. This was what the noble Lord, Lord Annan, said and they seem to be in agreement about that. I am not in agreement with this and that is why I pointed out that when the Government levied charges on museums the bodies of trustees were not all consulted. It was a national option and the Government decided that in future there should be museum charges.
Lord Swinfen: If I misunderstood the noble Baroness, I apologise. I thought she said it was her party's policy not to be against voluntary donations. This amendment deals solely with voluntary donations.
Baroness Birk: No, I am sorry, what I said was that I am in favour of voluntary donations. I did not discuss anybody else.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: I think that the noble Baroness will find in Hansard that she mentioned the party, too. But this has nothing to do with admission charges. We have decided that. This has to do with voluntary donations. I move the deletion of this subsection so that the trustees can use their experience and knowledge to decide what to do in this regard.
8.10 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 2) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 47; Not-Contents, 22.

DIVISION NO. 4

CONTENTS

Annan, L.

Hooper, B.

Attlee, E.

Lane-Fox, B.

Auckland, L.

Layton, L.

Beloff, L.

Long, V.

Belstead, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.

Brentford, V.

Brougham and Vaux, L. [Teller]

Mersey, V.

Mottistone, L.

Butterworth, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Caithness, E.

Rhodes, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Sandford, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Croft, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Davidson, V.

Strathclyde, L.

De La Warr, E.

Swinfen, L.

Denning, L.

Swinton, E.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Teviot, L.

Glanusk, L.

Thurlow, L.

Gridley, L.

Trumpington, B.

Halsbury, E.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L. [Teller.]

Vickers, B.

Henley, L.

Young, B.

Hives, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ardwick, L. [Teller.]

MacLeod of Fuinary, L.

Birk, B.

Phillips, B.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Shackleton, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Jeger, B.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L. [Teller.]

Underhill, L.

Lockwood, B.

Wells-Pestell, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Ypres, E.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
8.18 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: It seems that we have exceeded our time and therefore I think it best that without further ado I should move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Education Bill [H.L.]
House again in Committee.
Baroness Cox Baroness Cox moved Amendment No. 92A:
After Clause 43, insert the following new clause:
("First aid skills in schools.
.—Every Local Education Authority shall secure that, where no qualified medical personnel are available in a school, sufficient members of staff (at least one per school, the level of provision to be approved by the Health and Safety Executive) shall be trained in first aid skills to a standard to be approved by the Health and Safety Executive.")
The noble Baroness said: I shall speak only briefly to this amendment because its purpose is self-evident and I gave some of the more detailed reasons during my speech at Second Reading. I would therefore merely remind the Committee that there is an urgent need for legislative provision to ensure that there is first aid cover in our schools. At present although teachers are covered by legal requirements in their status as employees, there is no such provision for pupils. Some teachers, from a sense of professional responsibility, have of their own volition taken courses in first aid and a diminishing number of schools still have a school nurse. But in many schools there is no one with the necessary knowledge and skill to cope with emergencies—emergencies in which failure to provide the right treatment in the crucial early minutes could result in unnecessary loss of life, brain damage or other permanent injury.
The need for first aid expertise is made all the more urgent by the disturbing growth of violence in many of our schools. A recent report by one of the teachers' unions, the NAS-UWT, has given details of an alarming increase in serious injuries such as stabbings being inflicted by pupils on other pupils in some of our schools. But even apart from that worrying development, every day in every school, however well ordered, pupils are inevitably exposed to potentially dangerous situations—for example, to burns from acids or other strong chemicals in laboratories; to cuts from broken glass; to burns in schools' domestic science kitchens; or to injury during hard body-contact games.
The fact that ambulance services may be able to be on the scene in a fairly short time is no responsible solution. If a child starts to haemorrhage or stops breathing, it is the first few minutes which are all-important. If a child fractures, say, a rib, mishandling can lead to a perforated lung. If a child is scalded, the wrong treatment can lead to exacerbation of tissue damage and could increase the likelihood of permanent scarring, and so on.
I could continue for a long time with a list of potentially devastating serious results of failure to provide the right treatment in an emergency. I know the noble Lord, Lord Rea, from the opposite Benches would have made another point in this connection. It refers to the consequence in many cases where an injury has occurred, where teachers, because there is no one on the spot to provide first aid, have to take a child to either a GP or a hospital's accident or emergency clinic for treatment. That treatment could have been better applied at school. The child and the parents are worried by having to go to a hospital or to a doctor, and of course having to take the child there is a totally unnecessary waste of expensive medical time and of the teacher's time.
I was amazed when I learnt that schools do not now have to provide first aid cover for children as well as for teachers. It seems extraordinary that we put teachers' wellbeing above that of the children for whom the schools are in loco parentis. If parents were aware of this situation, I believe they would be horrified and furious. Surely we cannot continue to tolerate this situation; and this Bill provides us with an opportunity to remedy this totally unacceptable anomaly.
If my noble friend the Minister replies to the effect that there is not the money to make this provision, perhaps I may point out that there is money in the education support grants which could be used and also that the magnificent voluntary organisations such as the St. John Ambulance Association and the British Red Cross Society are willing to help to provide the necessary training as economically as possible. Therefore the costs of providing for skilled first aid cover are relatively cheap, but the price of failing to do so could be incalculable in human terms. The question surely must be not whether the Government can afford to accept the amendment, or something on similar lines, but whether they can afford not to do so, not only in human terms (which are the most important) but also in economic and political terms.
I know that noble Lords in every part of your Lordships' Committee have pledged strong support for this amendment. I sincerely hope that my noble friend the Minister will agree that the time is ripe for us, as a nation, to accept this responsibility for our children's safety and that he will not require us to show our support for this amendment in the Division Lobby, if not tonight. then at the Report stage. I beg to move.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: I, too, very strongly support this new clause, but I should like to have a definition of the word "staff". Is the noble Baroness referring just to the teaching staff, or is she referring also to such people as a good caretaker (who probably is there much longer than other members of the staff), a school secretary (who again may be there much longer), or a groundsman, in the case of an accident in the school grounds? If the noble Baroness intends the new clause to cover a wide conception of staff in that way. I support it completely.
Baroness Cox: I am happy to cover it in those terms. The important thing is that there should be someone on the site, readily available to give emergency treatment in those crucial first minutes and who is

465
qualified according to the appropriate standard recognised by the Health and Safety Executive.
Baroness Hylton-Foster: I also should like to support the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, and I should like to do so in addition on behalf of the British Red Cross Society. It has always been surprising to us that the care of children in schools did not come under the Health and Safety (First Aid) Regulations 1981. I know that the Red Cross and, I am sure, our colleagues in St. John, have already succeeded in training teachers in first aid who now also teach children as part of the curriculum. Why do we think this is necessary? It is because children in these modem times are exposed to a great many hazards, such as accidents in laboratories, with gas and electricity in cooking classes,by using sewing machines, on the playing fields, on expeditions or in coaches and arising from violence in schools. There are of course also the health hazards which have already been mentioned, such as diabetes, probably followed by a coma, heart attacks, fits and so on.
On all these occasions immediate first aid treatment—immediate and correct first aid treatment—can sometimes save lives as well as nearly always avoid complications. Saving life can cost money; but may I remind the Government and the health authorities of their responsibilities to other people's children? I ask the Minister to give this amendment serious consideration.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: The noble Baroness who moved the amendment is under no illusions that I share in any way her general views on education; in fact I am totally opposed to them. Nevertheless, on this amendment I give her 100 per cent. support, and I do so partly for personal reasons. I have spent a considerable part of my life in various functions within the game of rugby football. As a boy at school during a match I had an injury which 20 years later was diagnosed as a broken neck. I know there will be some noble Lords on the other side of the Committee who consider that it was not broken quite far enough. I am sure the noble Baroness is not one of those, but I am not so sure about the Front Bench. However, injuries are not an unusual occurrence in the game of rugby. My injury was not diagnosed because I was carried off the field, which I should not have been, and taken by car to the local hospital, which I should not have been, and there the injury was misdiagnosed. I am stuck with that for the rest of my life.
A much more serious accident occurred a few years later during another match, in which one of the opposing team also sustained a broken neck and died two days later. He was also carried off the field and, to my horror, he was carried off the field by medical students. He should never have been touched. I could go on: I remember a cricket incident where an umpire (a fairly old man) was hit very severely behind the head, but we had sufficient knowledge to leave him there and to call the ambulance. Nevertheless he never worked again.
Those kind of accidents will occur in sport. Sport is an essential part of the education system. When I gave up playing rugby, I refereed for many years, and I refereed many school matches. I was always horrified
466
at the lack of skilled medical attention on the touchline whenever there was an injury.
There is only one consideration here that I should like to put to the noble Baroness. I think the amendment probably needs a little clearer definition of health training. When we were refereeing—and I may say that at that time I was refereeing in conjunction with somebody who has become well known since then, Mr. Denis Thatcher (I keep curious company)—as London referees at school matches all over the country the one thing we would never do if there appeared to be serious injury was to allow St. John's Ambulance men to treat it, because they were simply not trained sufficiently to treat any serious injury. It might have required an ambulance; it certainly required a qualified doctor.
In supporting the noble Baroness in this amendment, I am wondering whether on consideration she might not think that the situation is so serious in schools where sport is played that there should be a clearer definition of the kind of medical training that should be essential for at least one member of staff, or preferably two as a cover. Many of these injuries cannot be diagnosed simply; they cannot be diagnosed without a full medical training. It may be that in a school having over a certain number of pupils it should be a requirement that there should be a fully trained doctor available, particularly during sports periods.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: I had not intended to speak on this amendment, but I think it would be quite inappropriate if a word were not said from these Benches in total support of the noble Baroness. Lady Cox. I have nothing very exciting to add to what has already been said by noble Lords, except that I do recollect on many occasions having to supervise swimming at school. I do not think swimming has been mentioned. I was always in dread and fear of having to cope with an accident which involved drowning or half drowning. That is yet another thing that can arise.
Another point that could be made is that it would give much more confidence to teachers who were supervising playgrounds or out-of-school activities if they felt that there was somebody around who could cope with an emergency. Of course, it is no good having a member of staff trained in first aid if he or she is not on the premises. One would have to stipulate that such a member was at all times on the premises when the children were there, which might give rise to further complications. However, in general I should like to express my full support for the amendment.
Lord Dean of Beswick: If noble Lord are wondering why I have wandered for a moment from my job as a Whip on the Front Bench, it is to give my support to this amendment, based on a programme which was on television at the weekend. I do not know whether any noble Lords or noble Baronesses saw the programme, which showed a number of young people suffering from spinal injuries and broken necks from the rugby field who were literally paralysed for the rest of their lives. The subject of the programme was rather different. It concerned the question of insurance, to

467
allow them, though totally paralysed from the neck downwards, to carry on through life with some sort of financial support rather than just being confined to a single room for the rest of their days. If this amendment can help in even the smallest way to eliminate that, I think it is worthy of support, and I hope your Lordships will bear with me for having moved from my position on the Front Bench as a Whip just for a few moments.
Baroness Young: I am sure the whole Committee will have considerable sympathy with the spirit of the amendment which has been proposed by my noble friend Lady Cox. The safety of our schoolchildren is a matter of the greatest concern, and it is right that we should take this opportunity to consider whether the present arrangements relating to it are sufficient or whether they could be improved by legislation along the lines proposed. Perhaps I may say right at the beginning that I am a very great admirer of the work that is done both by the Red Cross—I know, having heard Lady Hylton-Foster speak of the important role that she plays as, I think, president of the Red Cross—and by the St. John's Ambulance. I am sure all of us are full of admiration for the voluntary work that they do on so very many occasions in our country, and we fully appreciate the offer that they have made about training suitable people for this task.
What I should like to do in response to the amendment, because I think it is a very serious one, and I want to show that the Government do indeed take this matter very seriously, is to set out just what the current provisions are, for there are already a number of legislative provisions. First of all, there are common law requirements which are relevant to the question. In the first place, under the duty of care which each local education authority and its head teachers and other teachers owe to the children in their charge, there is a requirement that reasonable and sensible provision shall be made for the children's health and welfare. This is a most important common law right and duty.
To turn to the statutory requirements, it is sometimes said—indeed, I think the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, said this—that the main piece of legislation in this field, the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, applies only to employees in their place of work, and that it does not offer any protection to others such as children at school. That is by no means the case: the Act lays down health and safety requirements not only for employees but also for "persons other than persons at work" (Section 1(b)); similar requirements in rather more detail are also found in Sections 3 and 7 of the Act, for example. It is hard to see how authorities could hope to discharge these various duties without taking proper measures to ensure that suitably trained staff are available where required.
Noble Lords may ask, however, how far these various requirements actually affect the provision which is made. I must acknowledge that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State does not at present collect detailed statistical information about the qualifications of this kind held by the teaching force or of their distribution through the school system. Nevertheless, there is a good deal of informa-
468
tion available from the observations and other work of Her Majesty's Inspectorate which points to the conclusion that the great majority of schools (and of further education colleges—though these are not mentioned in the amendment of the noble Baroness) take their responsibilities properly and seriously. This picture indicates that the minimum provision put forward by the noble Baroness would be very much less than is the general practice in our schools and colleges. Indeed, it may help noble Lords to know that my right honourable friend's department already publishes and has published for many years a series of booklets of guidance on various safety matters, one of which is specifically on the question of first aid in educational establishments. This advice is reviewed, corrected and updated from time to time as required.
If I may just look in detail at the noble Baroness's amendment, first, there is always the danger in setting a minimum standard at a very modest level that that standard will come to be seen as the most appropriate level of provision when a well-run school is already likely to be much better off in this respect.
Secondly, the Government consider it inappropriate to intervene in great detail through statutory means in the provision of educational services which would best be provided for flexibly in accordance with local needs. It seems to me that the arrangements we already have are adequate—general requirements enforcing the need to act in a proper way, regularly published advice on points that need to be observed, particularly on new developments, and considerable latitude to implement arrangements in a way which meets local circumstances.
The noble Lord, Lord Hatch, and I usually disagree on all matters, but, having said that, I would not have wished that fate to befall him on the rugger field. He raised the point of having suitably qualified staff. I am not sure that the amendment would meet his case, because it provides that where there are no qualified medical personnel available in the school—I take it that that is not defined and means somebody who is either a qualified doctor or nurse—there should be somebody qualified in first aid. But there is no evidence to show that the person qualified in first aid would have been able to make the judgment that would have helped the noble Lord. From his story, his misfortune was that the medically qualified people made a mistake. Nothing that one writes into legislation or anywhere else will provide against a wrong diagnosis, which I think we would all agree is a misfortune of the greatest order. It was obviously not intended, but it was a misfortune.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: Will the noble Baroness—
Baroness Young: May I just conclude? I see the point that the noble Lord is making. I do not wish to be flippant, but when I was a Girl Guide I passed a course in first aid. However, I should hesitate to say that I was qualified to advise on injuries on a rugger field or to give medical advice, except of the simplest kind. I suspect, although this is a personal judgment, that many teachers qualified in first aid would hesitate considerably when dealing with somebody else's child to take the responsibility and would first call for an ambulance and take the injured child to hospital if they thought the injury was serious.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: I am much obliged to the noble Baroness. I only wish that her Girl Guides had been living somewhere near the rugby field! The point that I was making was that the misdiagnosis was incidental to my anecdote. I was taken from the rugby field across a road, put into a car and driven to hospital. That should never have been done. It was only because there was nobody in charge of the rugby match who had the medical knowledge that the mistake was made.
8.45 p.m.
Baroness Young: I thank the noble Lord for elucidating that point. Specialist PE teachers would be supervising and they will almost invariably have had relevant first aid training. Science teachers in any case have a general duty to instruct their pupils in the safe handling of chemicals and equipment, because science laboratories, and indeed kitchens, can be dangerous places and require stringent supervision. Furthermore, the health and safety regulations require there to be certain facilities, including first aid kits, available to teachers and other employees. It is inconceivable that those facilities would not also be available to pupils in the event of an accident.
A number of noble Lords have referred to the dangers. The noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, spoke of his anxiety about swimming pools. He made the important point that if one is embarking on the policy of having a qualified person, one must have that qualified person there throughout the school day, and presumably, if there are extracurricular activities during the time of those activities, out of normal school hours.
We have heard a great deal of theory about what might happen, but to the best of my knowledge there have been no cases where the treatment of a pupil after an accident has been found to be deficient. Negligence during the period leading up to an accident, but not afterwards, has occasionally been alleged. I make that point because it must be a reassurance to the Committee on what is a serious matter.
The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, raised a point about violence in schools. I understand that no case of injuries arising from violence which have not been satisfactorily dealt with in the medical sense has been reported to the Department of Education and Science.
I hope that with those reassurances about what the law lays down in the health and safety Acts and under the common law, about the training of teachers for PE and science, whose obligations, as well as the instruction of their pupils, include their safety, and about the case law, the noble Baroness will feel that the point that she has raised is being met and will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hylton-Foster: Before the noble Baroness sits down, may I tell her that the first aid standard approved by the Health and Safety Executive is extremely high? Anybody who holds that certificate would be perfectly capable of knowing what to do in the case of the accident on the rugger field and, more importantly, would know what not to do, because the essence of first aid is not to mess things up so that the case becomes more complicated.
470
With due respect to a number of noble Lords, the Red Cross and St. John's Ambulance have medical officers who are trained in first aid. Their view is that few ordinary doctors know anything about first aid, although they know their own job very well.
Earl De La Warr: Let me say how disappointed I was in my noble friend's reply. I expected her to say that the Government at least thought that it was a good idea to have somebody in every school who was trained in first aid, even if there were cogent reasons why that could not be done. It seemed to me that she was diligent to avoid such an opinion. She suggested that under certain circumstances it may be better not to have somebody, because they would be worried about having to fulfil their duty even perhaps while the ambulance was coming.
After all that we have heard from both sides of the Committee, we were entitled to hope and expect that the Government would say that they would like to take this matter away and look at it. We had no such thing, I am afraid.
Lord Mottistone: I should like to support my noble friend Lord De La Warr. The reply was disappointing. We required greater support for my noble friend Lady Cox. It is all very well to say that there may be people who are qualified, but there needs to be a statutory element to support what my noble friend was saying. Whether the clause is right, whether it needs changing, is another matter. What we are pleading for is a statutory endorsement of what my noble friend the Minister is saying is there, anyhow, because I do not believe that it is everywhere it should be. That is the sort of thing we want.
Baroness Young: I am very disappointed by what my noble friends have said. I have taken this amendment very seriously indeed and I have tried to set out what the statutory position is. I recognise what my noble friend Lady Cox is asking for, and I have tried to indicate that I believe it is fulfilled. I think that my noble friend Lord De La Warr was ma king a debating point about people who are qualified and about how they will deal with children. My noble friend Lady Cox shakes her head. After all, she is a qualified nurse; she has the confidence to deal with accidents. I have myself seen her deal with an accident and, if I had one, I could not be more confident of being properly looked after than if I were being looked after by my noble friend Lady Cox.
We are talking about a teacher in a school who will be trained to do this, but may not always have the confidence that is required and feels that he or she ought to call an ambulance because it is somebody else's child. I do not think that that is an unreasonable proposition, nor do I put it up as a debating point. I do not know whether my noble friend Lord De La Wan has himself had the experience of looking after other people's children, but I can assure him that if you are in that position, you think a good many times about what to do if there is an accident. So this is something to be taken seriously.
I take the point of the noble Baroness, Lady Hylton-Foster, about the standard of qualification of the Health and Safety Executive. I have no doubt that it is a high qualification. That assumes that people will be

471
willing, or will be obliged under this amendment, to be trained in those circumstances for every school in the country, which is an immense training programme to undertake, on the assumption that there is not somebody, such as a doctor or a nurse, currently there. There will be a tremendous expense if it is not a qualification which people have already gained in their training to be a teacher in the first place, be it of PE, science, home economics or whatever.
I hope very much that my noble friends will not feel that the Government are doing other than looking at this amendment very seriously indeed. I have tried, in all I have said, to make it plain that we believe that in the present situation the point that is made in the amendment is covered and that writing it on the face of the Bill is not necessary.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I have refrained from intervening because several of my noble friends have done so in terms with which I fully agree. I, too, am disappointed by what the Minister has said, not because I dissent from the reasoning behind it in many ways, but because there is a gap between the provision which she says is now available and the practice in many of our schools. There is a difference, as my noble friend Lord Dean said, between those schools that have adequate insurance and those that do not. I know that the amendment is not about insurance, but there are differences between the schools.
I should have thought, given the unanimous view of the Committee, that it would have been incumbent on the Minister to say not that she accepts the wording of the amendment—of course, that is not the point—but that she could see her way to encouraging her right honourable friend to formulate regulations which would provide for significant progress towards the objective of this amendment over a reasonable period of time, and that she would be prepared to have such regulations indicated as being available at a later stage of the Bill. Without such recommendations I could not suggest that the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, withdraws her amendment unconditionally.
Baroness Cox: I should like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hylton-Foster, and noble Lords who have contributed to this discussion so constructively and so supportively. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, for the novel experience of finding ourselves in agreement, and the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, for moving to the Back-Benches in order to offer his support. I am most grateful for the helpful and constructive suggestions that have been made. I take note, particularly, of some of the suggestions; for example, with regard to rewording and redrafting, which will meet some of the points about deficiencies in the current wording of this, at this stage, exploratory amendment.
Perhaps I may say, sadly, that I am very disappointed by the reply from my noble friend the Minister. I appreciate her expression of sympathy for this amendment, but it seems to me that that is sympathy essentially without substance. I think one of the most important criticisms that has been made—and it is certainly something that I should like to seek to clarify in taking this amendment forward in
472
a different form for the Report stage—is about specifying the standard which would be needed in order to ensure safe cover for first aid for emergencies.
I think I am able to assure the Committee that the standard of well qualified first aiders from the British Red Cross Society's training schemes, and from those of St. John's Ambulance, would certainly be able to provide cover needed for the kinds of emergencies which would be likely to occur in schools. The standard of courses which they provide for certain certificates is very high indeed, and would certainly give the maximum safety coverage that would be required in any responsible school, either to treat people or, at least as important, to prevent the wrong treatment of people who have suffered some kind of injury.
So I must reluctantly say that I was not convinced by the arguments of my noble friend the Minister. It seems to me that what is at stake is not the fact that there are certain guidelines, handbooks or recommendations of various kinds, or the fact that some schools adopt good practice. Our concern is a question of a gap in the cover for children who are inherently vulnerable given the nature of their situation. It is not enough to say that science teachers or domestic science teachers instruct their pupils in how to deal with chemicals in the laboratory, or how to deal with potentially dangerous situations in domestic science kitchens. That will not forestall an accident, and accidents can occur at any time, no matter how good the preventive treatment or the preventive teaching may be.
If there were any gap in the provision of first aid cover, and if a child were to be vulnerable through failure to provide life-saving or injury-saving treatment, it would be very tragic to condone the situation. Surely this Government must accept as fail-safe a position as possible so as to prevent unavoidable injury or unavoidable exacerbation of injury to children in schools. Do we have to wait until a tragedy does occur before such legislation is deemed to be necessary?
I take heart from the widespread support from all parts of your Lordships' Committee. We will work at trying to bring forward an amendment which meets some of the very relevant points that have been made. At this stage I shall beg leave to withdraw the amendment, but I must say that I have every intention of returning at Report stage. I hope very much that those noble Lords who have indicated their support for this amendment in its spirit at this stage will then, if necessary, join me in the Division Lobby to support it, because I feel very strongly indeed that we owe this to the children of our land. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 44 [Travelling and subsistence allowances for governors of schools and establishments of further education]:
9 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 93:
Page 46, line 17, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
The noble Lord said: We turn now to another of the miscellaneous provisions. This is bound to be a choppy session because we are moving from one clause to another with very little relationship between one clause and the next. The issue of travelling and subsistence allowances for governors of schools and establishments of further education, although a subordinate matter, is a proper corollary of the intention of the Government and of the Bill to improve the democratic government of our schools and of our establishments of further education.
Noble Lords whose experience like mine is mainly in cities, particularly those of us who carry bus passes so that we do not incur extra expenditure for travelling and subsistence, may not be fully aware of the difficulties which will face governors especially in rural areas and especially in areas where considerable distances may be travelled to governing body meetings. I remind the Committee that the provision for governing bodies includes also boarding schools, special schools and even special schools within hospitals, although on slightly different terms.
The provisions of Clause 44 which say that a local education authority may pay travelling and subsistence allowance seem somewhat in conflict with the intentions of the Government which are to break the governing bodies away from the shackles of local education authorities, make them independent, make them more representative and make them more effective. I am not suggesting that many local authorities will deliberately and spitefully restrict travel and subsistence allowances in order to make governing bodies less effective; but it is surely not unreasonable that this minimum provision for facilitating the meetings of governing bodies and the full attendance of those who would otherwise find it difficult to attend governing bodies, should be a statutory requirement on local authorities.
I should have thought that such a provision and such a protection for governing bodies against the over-riding power of local authorities was very much in the spirit of the Bill as it has been drafted. I hope that the Government will find it an unexceptionable addition and improvement to the provision they are already making. I beg to move.
Lord Denning: The Bill is all right as it is. Lawyers are often concerned with whether "may" means "shall" and "shall" means "may". Usually the courts give the sensible interpretation. What it means is that the local education authority has the power to do this and shall do it unless there is good cause to the contrary. It seems to me that there is no difficulty whatever in leaving it as it is.
Baroness Young: There is no doubt that the present arrangements for allowances for governors are highly unsatisfactory. Under dubious vires, councillors in some areas receive a range of allowances for service as a governor while other governors are entitled to nothing. Clause 44 sweeps all this away by providing a new and fairer system in which, if a local education authority chooses to make a scheme, travel and subsistence allowances would be available to all
474
governors of selected classes of establishment, whether or not they are councillors. This amendment would make it compulsory for authorities to have such schemes for the payment of allowances.
The Government do not believe it is necessary to move from the essentially discretionary position that now obtains, except to rule out the differentiation between categories of governor and, consistent with their view that governorship is a form of voluntary service, to limit allowances to those payable in respect of travelling and, where appropriate, subsistence. To go further would seem inappropriate in view of the resource implications that this would inevitable have.
Such a move would also seem to be generally unnecessary. At various points, the Government have been criticised for being too rigid in this Bill. Here we are criticised for being too flexible. It seems entirely right that the issue of allowances should be settled area by area in the light of each area's circumstances and the views of those involved. I have no doubt that governors affected will make their views known.
We believe that this is the best way of dealing with this matter. If the Bill were to impose a duty to pay allowances, as proposed by this amendment, it would also seem necessary to prescribe what those allowances should be in order to ensure that a nonsense is not made of the duty by the payment of only token allowances. We should then have a complicated structure in place of the simple framework provided by this clause and which is all that is required. With that explanation—and, if I may say so, with the very interesting intervention by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, in support of Clause 44—I hope very much that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am impressed by the clarity and brevity of the intervention of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning. I certainly yield to him in his interpretation of what is meant by "may" and "shall", although it seems different from the way in which I use these words in ordinary life. I am bemused by the intervention of the Minister. Unless I misunderstand her, the noble Baroness says that it is compulsory to make a scheme, but that the scheme although it is compulsory may not result in the actual payment of travelling and subsistence allowances. I shall read carefully what she had to say; and, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 94:
Page 46, line 19, leave out ("and").
The noble Lord said: In speaking to Amendment No. 94, I should like also to speak to Amendment No. 95 with I hope suitable brevity. It may well be said that this is within the terms of the Bill as drafted. "Subsistence allowances" is a male orientated term. On many occasions it means something more like compensation for loss of opportunities—not necessarily loss of financial earnings but loss of opportunities. To eat at home, to have a meal

475
prepared by one's wife, is the way in which I am sure it is often thought of. We hope that the encouragement being given to different people to serve on governing bodies is being given at least equally to women as to men.
Child care allowances are, from the woman's point of view, as important as subsistence allowances are for men and for women. It seems a natural extension of the provisions in the Bill, and one that ought not to cause enormous difficulty. It is not suggested that there should be the provision of child care; simply that there should be allowances equivalent in some cases to probably not much more than the babysitting allowances that are already made by local authorities to their members. There are adequate precedents for such allowances, and it seems reasonable that they should be extended from members of local authorities to those who serve on governing bodies. I beg to move.
Baroness Young: As we have already made clear, we regard service as a governor as a valuable form of voluntary service. In considering such service, parents and other governors will clearly give careful consideration to their domestic circumstances in the light of the commitment necessary to enable them to discharge that important task effectively.
The noble Lord, in making his suggestion to add to Clause 44 a child care allowance, would introduce a completely new form of allowance, and so far as I am aware it is not one that is written into legislation available for councillors. We would be embarking in this part of the Education Bill on a new form of allowances for school governors.
I recognise the sincerity of the noble Lord in moving the amendment, and its purposes in the light of the Bill's aim to increase parents' involvement in and influence over their children's schooling. However, it would be difficult to make such a provision statutorily in a Bill of this kind. Furthermore, it is reasonable to expect that school governors' meetings will be fixed at a time that would suit the majority of the governors. Normally, governors would have the opportunity to make their availability known before those meetings are arranged. A governor unable to attend a meeting will always be able to submit written comments on any matter to be discussed, although I acknowledge that he or she would not be able to vote should the matter be taken to that formal conclusion.
I recognise the point that the noble Lord is making, but it would not be right for me to do other than to state what the Government would see as clearly being quite extensive resource implications if such a provision were to be written onto the face of the Bill. The Committee may agree that this is not the appropriate place in which to introduce a completely new type of allowance that would have considerable resource implications. We are saying that travel and subsistence allowances will be available. I do not think I would accept that subsistence is a male-orientated term. I do not think that my husband would take that view of it, at any rate, even if everyone else did. Subsistence means what it says: the ability, when one must have a meal out because of a meeting, to be able
476
to have that meal paid for, and to have one's travel expenses met. I believe that such payments are accepted and are equally applicable to me or to women governors as the case may be. I hope very much that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am grateful for that explanation. The noble Baroness may well be right about the definition of the word "subsistence". There are always different interpretations to be put on words of that sort. Before I withdraw the amendment, I ask the noble Baroness whether the Government have formed a view on this point. If a local authority did decide to grant child care allowances, then would it be prohibited from doing so by the terms of the Bill, or would such payments be within the discretion of the local authority to make to governors if it so wished? My understanding is that there are local authorities that do such a thing for their councillors at the moment. If the noble Baroness does not have that information available now, perhaps she will let me know the answer later.
Baroness Young: The best that I can do is to write to the noble Lord on that point, and I undertake to do so.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: In anticipation of that reply, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 95 not moved.]
The Earl of Swinton The Earl of Swinton moved Amendments Nos. 95A and 95B:
Page 47, line 27, leave out from ("No") to ("to") and insert ("allowance may be paid").
Page 47, line 29, leave out ("any allowance").
The noble Earl said: These are drafting amendments, I beg to move them en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 44, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 45 [Repeal of section 4 of the 1944 Act]:
On Question, Whether Clause 45 shall stand part of the Bill?
9.15 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I do not know that this is a matter to take to a vote but it seems that after the very distinguished history of the central advisory councils for education over a period of 40 years—perhaps not over the past few years but for many of the past 40 years—it is a very mean provision that the 1944 Act should be amended in this way.
The central advisory councils have played a very significant role in our understanding of educational problems and in the way in which we have looked to the future over the post-war years. It would be invidious to single out individual reports, but certainly the name of Plowden, as of others, rings in the heads of those concerned with education.

477
It may be that individual Secretaries of State find it more convenient to be served in an advisory capacity by ad hoc councils and committees. There has certainly been no shortage of those in recent years, even if the central advisory councils have not been used. However, the advantage of having continuing central advisory councils, even with membership which changes in some ways, is that there is a recognition of the role of—I hesitate to say the great and the good—those who have a lifetime of experience in the education world, who have wisdom to give to the Secretary of State and the education community and who have proved their worth on many occasions.
It is difficult to see on what basis, other than a pulling up of the drawbridge, the Government wish to say that for ever in the future there shall be no equivalent of the central advisory councils for education. I hope the Government will find it possible to say a few words of comfort to those who have valued the work of the central advisory councils and will indicate that this totally blank prohibition on future advice of this sort is not the intention of the Government in the long term.
Baroness Hooper: There was certainly no intention to be mean about this provision of the Bill. It was simply intended as a tidying-up operation. It is, in fact, over 20 years since the last central advisory council report was published. That is not to say that successive governments have not continued to value the contribution of informed outside opinion on a wide range of policy matters. As the noble Lord suggested, this is now done on a more ad hoc basis: examples are the Cockcroft Committee on the teaching of mathematics, the Swann Committee on the education of children from ethnic minority groups, and the Warnock Committee on special educational needs.
In 1982, in response to the second report of the Education, Science and Arts Committee, the Government undertook to abolish the central advisory councils, and nothing has happened since then which has made us change our view. I hope that helps the noble Lord.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am bound to say that I am disappointed with that reply. While recognising the value of the work done by the ad hoc committees—and I certainly join in everything said by the noble Baroness—I should have thought the Government would not have wished to close the door they are now seeking to close however long the notice they gave of it. However, I can see that we are not going to make much progress on this and I will not pursue my intention to oppose the Motion that this clause stand part of the Bill.
Clause 45 agreed to.
Clause 46 [Discontinuance of Secretary of State's duty to make annual reports]:
On Question, Whether Clause 46 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: This is a crazy clause. There is no other word for it. The Government are demanding reports from all and sundry about all
478
aspects of our education system. Even bearing in mind the gloss which the noble Baroness, Lady Young, put on an earlier clause about reports from governing bodies, the whole reporting structure of governing bodies—the reports back from the governing bodies to the parents, the preparation for the annual parents' meetings, the inter-linking obligations for information between the local education authorities and the governing bodies, the governing bodies and their constituencies—forms a major part of this Bill. In clause after clause we have requirements—rightly, in my view, and I am not disputing that—for regular, consistent and statutory reporting back from those who have a responsibility for some part of the governance of our education system. However, the one aspect of this which affects the Secretary of State—the requirement, in existence since 1944. that the Secretary of State shall make an annual report to Parliament—is to be removed.
I am simply not going to be convinced by any argument for the Government that no one pays attention to the report of the Secretary of State. I am sure that this is what we shall be told. In practice, what that means is either that the Secretary of State is not taking the responsibility seriously and is not making the report as informative as it should be—I am sure that such criticism will apply just as much to Labour Secretaries of State as to Conservative Secretaries of State—or that Parliament is not doing its duty and debating the reports of the Secretary of State when they are available. Both arguments may be advanced.
It may be said that they are not good enough reports, or that they are not considered adequately. This does not mean that the obligation to produce them should be abolished. What it means is that the Secretary of State should take them more seriously, that Parliament should take them more seriously, and, above all, that informed public opinion should be brought up against the real facts of what is happening in our education system on a regular basis, not less than once a year. I hope very much that the Government will give further consideration to this illogical, irrational and, I would say, improper intrusion into a Bill that is designed to increase democracy in our education system.
Baroness Young: I am not sure that I shall be able to be as reassuring in response to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, as he would like. I wish, however, to set out for the benefit of the Committee the reasons that have led the Government to include the clause in the Bill. Despite the interest shown by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, the Secretary of State's annual report to Parliament is not being read as widely as it once was. Sales have declined steadily over recent years from about 4,000 a year in the late 1960s to about 1,000 today. On the other hand, for those who want to read a great deal, the total number of publications produced by the DES has risen from about 100 to about 400. Given the comparatively limited scope of the department's publications programme in earlier years, it was probably wiser to produce the annual report. Indeed, it was a necessary and useful source of information about the Government's education policies. But times change. The annual report now

479
largely repeats information already reported to Parliament or made public in other ways. The bibliography to the chapter relating to the department in the annual public expenditure White Paper, for example, provides a reference point for the main publications about education and science.
It will also be helpful, I believe, if I say that the Department of Education and Science will be producing an annual sources document that will be freely available, and that will list its parliamentary and non-parliamentary publications by subject. Copies will be lodged in the Libraries of both Houses of Parliament. The list will include statutory instruments, circulars and administrative memoranda and statistical sources as well as press notices that cover, for example, all major speeches made by Ministers. The material that was available in the annual report will continue to be available, we believe, in a better form. It will be available for anyone to look up, as copies will be available in the Library. It will, of course, be available for debate. It is perfectly possible for any of your Lordships to debate different aspects of government education policy, backed up by the particular publications to which they refer. As public interest in the report has dropped considerably, it seems to the Government that it is no longer necessary to publish it. As I have already indicated, all the material that would be in the annual report is now largely repeated information which has already been given to Parliament and the public.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: We must be grateful to the noble Baroness for what she says about the sources booklet. I am sure that it will be valuable to Members of Parliament. However, in almost every other respect that reply was deeply disappointing.
In the first place it seemed to indicate that the primary interest of the public in this education matter is that of Members of Parliament who have access to such documents as are placed in the Library. Secondly, there seems to be a total confusion about the need for communication. I should have thought that above all this Government, and above all at this time, would have recognised that there is widespread dissatisfaction and distrust regarding their education policy and those who have the political responsibility for carrying it out.
Under these circumstances if the speech of the noble Baroness were read at Conservative Central Office, she would find very considerable astonishment at the complacency which she expresses about the need for the Government to explain themselves to a wider public than Parliament. If it is indeed true—and I do not doubt what the noble Baroness says—that the circulation of these annual reports has reduced from 4,000 to 1,000, Conservative Central Office will tell the noble Baroness that something must be done to increase the circulation and to provide a more popular document which people want to read and which states what the Government want to say about our education system.
Putting it in a less political way, the advantage of an annual report is that it has consistent, continuous and
480
predictable contents which can be expected at a certain time every year. It provides a consistent basis for comment and criticism on the performance of our education system and of the Government in their responsibilities towards it.
I suspect that the motives of the department in wishing to abolish this annual report are widely at variance with the motives of those who are advising the Conservative Party on political matters and that if it were known to whoever are the successors to Sir Gordon Reece, they would be horrified at what is now proposed. If the Government wish to handicap themselves in their communications with a wider public, so be it. There is no more than we can say about it.
Clause 46 agreed to.
Clause 47 [Minimum age for governors of establishments of further education]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 96:
Page 48, line 8, leave out ("eighteen") and insert ("sixteen").
The noble Lord said: There was a very considerable debate on the question of pupil governors on Clause 2 of the Bill on the first day of Committee. We feel that it was not a debate which was as coherent as we would have wished because it included discussion of pupil governors with a whole range of other issues relating to the composition of governing bodies. Nevertheless, I believe that the Committee felt that at that stage Members had an opportunity to comment on the issue of pupil governors. We are not satisfied with the result, but at this time of night on the fourth day of Committee it is probably better if we reserve our rights to come back to this in perhaps a more coherent and effective form. I do not propose to move Amendment No. 96.
[Amendment No. 96 not moved.]
Clause 47 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 97 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
9.30 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 97A:
After Clause 47, insert the following new clause:
("Duties of Secretary of State in exercising powers under Education Act 1980.
.—In considering any proposals required to be submitted for his approval under sections 12 to 15 of the Education Act 1980, the Secretary of State shall—
(a) give reasons in writing for his decision and provide copies to those who have objected to the proposals;
(b) announce his decision within three months of the date of such submission of proposals to him;
(c) take account of the need for maintaining the balance of provision between county and voluntary school places in the area concerned; and
(d) make available on request to any statutory objector all papers, submissions, reports and minutes of meetings and any other material relevant to the proposals.").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 97A is not a standard amendment from this Dispatch Box. It is not

481
one of a series of amendments which we have been moving with concern for the state education system in mind. Amendment No. 97A arises from a very considerable feeling of discontent in many parts of the country about decisions regarding closure, or indeed non-closure, of schools made by local education authorities and confirmed or not confirmed by the Secretary of State.
I imagine that quite a number of noble Lords will have been the recipients of very effective lobbying by the Reverend Paul Nicholson of Turville in Buckinghamshire, who is protesting against the closure of three schools in Buckinghamshire by the Buckinghamshire Education Authority. His protest is not merely that a wrong decision has been made—although that is the basis of his argument—but that the local education authority refuses to discuss the issues adequately with him and that when the matter goes to the Secretary of State, despite the intervention of at least one MP for the area, he relies on his powers under existing legislation not to give his reasons for the decision or to provide copies to those who have objected to the proposals. That is one case which concerns the closure of a school where parents and local residents are in conflict with the local education authority.
There is another example in Sherborne in Dorset where the issue concerns a number of secondary schools, both grammar schools and secondary modern schools, which are by modern standards too small for the purposes of education in the area. In that case, the parents in the area and the local education authority are both agreed that these unsatisfactory, small, selective schools should be closed and that they should he replaced by larger comprehensive schools in the area. I would not say that that is the unanimous view, because that would be impossible, but it is the view of a substantial number of parents and of the local education authority.
The Secretary of State, in his wisdom or otherwise, has decided that those closures shall not take place and that the schools which are wanted by local people shall not be opened. Using his rights under existing legislation, he has refused to give his reason for that decision. Whichever way the issue goes, and whether or not there is disagreement between local parents, or it could be governing bodies or the local education authority, where the issue goes to the Secretary of State for decision it is surely quite unreasonable and out of keeping with the general spirit of the Bill before us that the Secretary of State should not be obliged to give his reasons in writing for the decision.
I can predict what the Government will say. They will not use these words but they will say, in effect, that any reasons that are given by the Government for a decision are a hostage to fortune because they can be challenged, and there is therefore the possibility that there will be further debate, further discussion and further trouble for the Secretary of State and for the department in securing their objectives.
I suggest that, in the light of the Government's well known determination that the government of our schools shall be more democratic, it is not unreasonable to say that the Secretary of State shall:
"(a) give reasons in writing for his decision and provide copies of it";
482
and then under paragraph (b) that he shall do so within a reasonable time, and we suggest within three months of the date of submission of proposals.
Under paragraph (c) the Secretary of State shall:
"take account of the need for maintaining the balance of provision between county and voluntary school places in the area concerned".
I should have thought that that was an argument which would apply particularly strongly to those noble Lords and right reverend Prelates who have expressed their concern for the continuation of the dual system. Then, under paragraph (d), he shall:
"make available on request to any statutory objector all papers, submissions, reports and minutes of meetings and any other materials relevant to the proposals".
It does not just apply to the Secretary of State; it is also true for the local education authorities themselves.
Under the Education Act 1980 a local authority which excludes, or fails to give a place to, a child in a particular school preferred by the parent is obliged to give reasons to the parent for that exclusion. Even though a local authority has all of those obligations to an iiidividual parent, under the legislation as proposed the Secretary of State can make decisions affecting literally hundreds of children without having to give any explanation to the parents. That must make it more difficult for those parents to mount any reasonable objection. It must make it more difficult for the governing bodies, whose powers and scope are to be increased by this Bill, to do the job laid upon them by this legislation as effectively as they should.
It is a total anomaly that we should have a Bill which lays all these obligations on local education authorities, on individual parents and on governing bodies, and fails to make the same sort of obligation incumbent upon the Secretary of State. I do not believe that objective supporters of the Bill, objective supporters of the Government, could seriously wish this anomaly to be included in the Bill. I hope that noble Lords on all sides of the Committee will feel that there is something defective here, and will encourage the Government to think again about this matter.
It is not a party political matter: it is one felt strongly by parents and local education authorities in many parts of the country, and particularly those concerned with the voluntary schools. The fact that I am saying it now from this Dispatch Box ought not to have any influence on the issue. It is a matter which deserves to be taken above the realm of party politics and treated with all the seriousness and humility that the Government can command. I beg to move.
Baroness Young: Under Sections 12 to 15 of the Education Act 1980 it is for local education authorities, or where appropriate the governors of voluntary schools, to make proposals for the establishment, discontinuance or significant alteration of a school. They do so by publishing notices of their intentions. The notices are expected to be the outcome of a period of public consultation, and recent High Court decisions have confirmed that those affected have a legitimate right to be consulted on proposals for school reorganisations, which is enforceable to the same extent as a statutory requirement to comult.

483
Once notices have been published, the Act provides for a period of two months during which objections to the proposals may be made and, in the case of proposals made by a local authority, a further month within which the objections, with the local authority's comments on them, should be passed to the Secretary of State. Thereafter it is the Secretary of State's duty to consider and decide upon the proposals on their individual merits having regard to all the relevant circumstances, including the views of any objectors. His power under the Act is solely one of approval or rejection: he cannot modify proposals save in the most limited fashion, and only after consultation with the proposers; nor can he substitute his own judgments for those of the proposers.
The amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, would, first, impose on the Secretary of State the duty to give reasons in writing for his decisions and to supply a copy to the objectors. Where the Secretary of State decides to reject proposals, the proposers—as providers of education in a particular area—have a direct interest in knowing the grounds on which they have been rejected, and the Secretary of State already gives his reasons in such cases under the 1980 Act. But in cases where approval is given, the Secretary of State is in effect saying that, having considered all the relevant factors and all the views that have been put to him, he favours on balance the case made by the proposers. The grounds for their proposal should already be clear from the consultations they have carried out, the adequacy of which is one of the factors that the Secretary of State will take into account in reaching his decision. A further statement of reasons would be superfluous.
Secondly, the noble Lord seeks to impose a duty on the Secretary of State to reach decisions within three months. Under the provisions of the 1980 Act, which I have just explained, a period of three months from the publication of notices must elapse before the Secretary of State can embark on his consideration of proposals. But even if the noble Lord's intention is that the three-month period for consideration should run from the time when objections and comments are passed to the Secretary of State, the amendment would still represent an unacceptable constraint on his ability to give full and fair consideration to all the issues in what may often be complex sets of proposals. Objectors and proposers alike often ask for meetings with Ministers to set out their case long after the proposals were published, and it is important that they should have a hearing. The Secretary of State is aware of the anxiety and the administrative difficulties that may result if decisions on reorganisations are unduly delayed, and is constantly seeking means of improving his ability to make prompt decisions. We believe that the imposition of an arbitrary time-limit for decisions would be to the detriment of careful and balanced assessment of proposals.
Thirdly, the amendment would impose a duty on the Secretary of State to take account, in reaching his decisions, of the need to maintain the balance of provision between county and voluntary schools in the area concerned. The Secretary of State is conscious of,
484
and is committed to maintain, the valuable contribution made by the voluntary schools to the education service. In considering any proposal involving a voluntary school the balance of local provision, the views of the governors and the voluntary bodies concerned and the preservation of parental choice are factors to which he already attaches considerable importance. They have, however, to be balanced against other considerations which in a particular case may be equally pressing. We believe that it would be invidious to enshrine this consideration alone as one which the Secretary of State has a statutory duty to take into account.
Finally, the amendment seeks to oblige the Secretary of State to make available on request to objectors any material, including submissions, reports and minutes of meetings, which is relevant to the proposals. To make available in this way documents relating to the consideration of the proposals within the Department of Education and Science would be a clear breach of the established conventions on the confidentiality of official advice to Ministers and is not acceptable to the Government. But I think that what the noble Lord probably wishes to secure is the release to the objectors of the comments that the local education authority makes to him on its objections, together with any supporting material provided.
Normally the Secretary of State regards this matter as one between proposers and objectors. He considers that in the usual run of such cases it would not rest with him to make this material available to objectors. Some local education authorities already disclose their comments as a matter of course, and the Secretary of State endorses this practice. Where proposers are not inclined to follow it, he considers whether the proposers' submissions have raised new facts or arguments, previously unknown to the objectors, which are likely to be crucial to his decision. Where this is the case, the Secretary of State in the interests of fairness takes steps to ensure that the objectors have a further opportunity to comment within a specified time limit. The proposers would then themselves have a right to comment on any further points made by objectors. The Secretary of State thus ensures that objectors are not put at a disadvantage in making their case: he would not wish to be obliged to go further in disseminating material made available to him by proposers.
I have gone into a lengthy and detailed explanation. I have done so because I appreciate the points made by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. This matter was debated, I well recall, extensively during the passage of the Education Act 1980. He said quite properly that it had been referered to in various cases and proposals which have come before the Secretary of State. I have set out as fully as I can the reasons for not accepting his amendments. We believe that the considerations that apply and the way that the 1980 Act has worked have proved to be helpful. I hope that he will perhaps read again what I have said and consider it. I hope too that he will recognise that I have gone into detail because I should not want the important points he is making simply to be picked up and not considered fully. I hope that my explanation will be helpful to the whole Committee and that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
9.45 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I listened to what the Minister said with mounting disbelief; and those who feel strongly that justice is not being done in many Conservative parts of the country will read what she said with mounting disbelief. It is literally true that the powers of the Secretary of State in dealing with cases that are brought to him are restricted to accepting or rejecting the proposals and he has no power to amend them.
But of course the power to accept or reject is the greatest of the powers that any Minister can have, and when—as in the case of Sherborne in Dorset—the Secretary of State overturns the united view of the parents in the area and gives no reason at all for his decision, it will take more than the speech of the Minister to convince the people of Sherborne in Dorset that their case has been heard reasonably, promptly and with the due attention to the issues which are important to them in the lives of their children. I fear that they will not be convinced by what has been said.
Again, on the issue of the time limit, perhaps three months is the wrong period. It may well be that there are complicated cases which will take more than three months. It is certainly the case that Labour Secretaries of State have taken more than three months to deal with matters of this kind and are just as open to criticism for delay as any other Secretary of State. But there must be some kind of time limit; there must be some provision whereby, in natural justice, parents, pupils and education authorities who have to refer to the Secretary of State for adjudication and decision, can have some assurance that at some stage there is a time limit for the reply and that it is not simply open to the "Department of Circumlocutions" to postpone decisions until it is more politically or administratively convenient to announce them.
Again, it is useful to have the assurance of the Minister that the Secretary of State takes account of the need for maintaining the balance. But, surely, the point about having it in this amendment is that the decision of the Secretary of State and the reasons given by the Secretary of State for his decision must plainly and clearly be in accordance with that obligation and that the two must be related to justify the decision. I accept that legalistically it is not in the power of the Secretary of State to make available papers submitted in confidence by a local education authority, and I accept that there is a constitutional convention in this country that advice to Ministers is not normally made public; although that has been breached with impunity recently by a jury in the Old Bailey.
If that is the case, then there must be some other obligation on the Secretary of State to ensure that, in ways which do not breach either the constitutional convention or the confidentiality of those who are submitting evidence to the Secretary of State, the arguments are fairly put before the objectors. I heard no sign in what the Minister has said that any of these important points, which are not points about the wording and not legalistic points but points about the basic rights of parents in our education community, have been accepted or understood by the Government at all.
486
This is not the time of night at which we proceed to a Division but I do not withdraw this amendment without the most serious warning to the Government that there must be an occasion to raise this matter again. It ought to be raised at a time when far more Members of the House are here in Committee to hear the arguments. I believe that the arguments are ones which will appeal to many supporters of the Government in this Committee and in this House. I believe that the issues of fundamental human rights which are involved here are ones which are common to all of us.
Here, unfortunately, is one of those cases of a bureaucracy entrenching itself against information and against disclosure. I believe that if I were to press the matter to a vote now it would find support on many sides of the Committee; but I believe that it would be wrong to do so when, inevitably, fat more Members of the Committee would not be able to express an opinion. This is not a matter which will go away. It is one on which the Government will have to recognise the strong feeling which is in the minds and hearts of many people in different parts of this country. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 98 not moved.]
Lord Kilmarnock Lord Kilmarnock moved Amendment No. 98A:
After Clause 47, insert the following new clause:
("Duty of local education authority to disclose information.
.The local education authority shall give reasons for proposals made under sections 12 to 15 of the Education Act 1980 and shall make available to any statutory objector all papers, submissions, reports, minutes of meetings and other material relevant to the proposals.")
The noble Lord said: This amendment stands back to back with Amendment No. 97A, which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, has just moved. That amendment addressed the secrecy which surrounds the Secretary of State's decisions on closures, against which parents have only the expensive recourse of judicial review, which, as the Committee will know, is a costly process. In the case of one of the schools to which I shall shortly refer the cost was £7,000 for counsel's opinion and so on, and in another case the cost was £4,000. It is not a cheap matter for parents to go for a judicial review against a decision of the Secretary of State.
This amendment addresses the equal opacity surrounding the LEA's proposals to the Secretary of State: the wretched parents are presented with two blank walls of silence and their attempts to make an impact on the very important decisions affecting the opportunities for their children are thereby diminished.
Is not this Bill one which enshrines the principle of greater parental involvement in the running of schools? Is it not therefore an appropriate vehicle in which to put this manifest injustice right; or, putting the question the other way round, should we not be guilty of a grave lapse in our duty to parents and their children if we failed to grasp the opportunity to do so?
Perhaps I could put an actual case before the Committee, that of the Turville Church of England

487
voluntary-aided primary school in Buckinghamshire, threatened with closure. The Secretary of State would not divulge his reasons; the local authority would not provide the background information on its closure proposals; and when the leader of the local campaign, the Reverend Paul Nicholson, wrote to Buckinghamshire County Council he received the following answer from the county secretary:
"In reply to your letter of the 27th February, I am not prepared to undertake the inquiries or provide the information which you have requested, for reasons which have been well documented in our previous correspondence".
What a cheek, and what a way to treat the parents of Buckinghamshire!
It is not only closures that parents object to. Sometimes they want rationalisation, as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has already pointed out. In Stroud and Gloucester, thousands of parents wanted a reorganisation which would have made better use of the existing facilities but which would have involved the demise of the eleven-plus and having 11-to-16 year-old comprehensive schools in every neighbourhood, with a sixth form college based on the grammar school site. But the determination of the authority to preserve selection put this out of court and will probably kill one secondary modern school serving an isolated community.
In Gloucester it is even worse. There there are grossly unviable selective schools already, and the Secretary of State resists any change. Neither from him, nor from the authority, can the parents get the crucial background information which would assist them to argue their case successfully, or at least more successfully.
Behind this veil of secrecy, in some Conservative-controlled councils secondary modern schools are made to bear the whole brunt of falling rolls, while grammar schools with less than one form entry are preserved. You can argue, if you like, that this is the proper way to go about things and that grammar schools of whatever size must be preserved at whatever cost. One may hold that view. But it is also fair to bring out into the open the thinking and the facts which lie behind these decisions, so that those who oppose them can advance their arguments to the contrary. Surely we are carrying our national obsession with secrecy to a grotesque degree.
It must by now be clear that the state of the law in this field is not satisfactory and the obfuscatory instincts of the Secretary of State and the local education authority sometimes reinforce each other. For example, on 27th March of this year the chairman of the Buckinghamshire County Council wrote to the Reverend Paul Nicholson, whom I have already mentioned, as follows:
"Without going into detail, I know that it has been made clear to you that you do not have the right as a ratepayer or an objector to the accounts to see any document in the County Council's files which you choose; that the DES made it clear that they are not prepared to release correspondence with the Authority over the closure proposals. In the light of the DES policy, the County Council are not prepared to release such documents either".
Can that be right? I must say that I should have thought that that was indefensible.
The noble Baroness, Lady Young, may tell me that the position is now covered by the Access to Information Act which came into effect on 1st April. If she can assure me that a letter similar to the letter I have just quoted from the Chairman of the Buckinghamshire County Council on 27th March could not have been written after 1st April, I might see a gleam of hope, but my understanding of that Act is that it does not do the trick or have that effect. It is therefore my contention that we require this new clause to ensure that such a letter can never again be written. I beg to move.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: I should like to say a few words about a parallel case, also from Buckinghamshire concerning three schools, one at Stokenchurch, the Bartholomew Tipping School, and two in High Wycombe, the Pembroke and Wellsbourne Schools. The story is that in October 1984 the local education authority announced the proposed closure of those schools. This would involve disruption for something like 1,500 children of secondary school age—that is to say, at a very crucial and vulnerable stage of their education. The parents involved got their act together and organised protests and objections. They made their feelings felt both to the education authority and also to the Secretary of State. It was not until February 1986 that the Secretary of State's decision was made and the decision was announced that the closure would go forward. He also said that he was not required to state his reasons for closing the three schools.
In support of what my noble friend Lord Kilmarnock has just said, I should like to say that there are three good reasons why certain information should be disclosed. A great deal of time and money is spent by these very concerned people working in the interests of their children. In doing that they are behaving as good democrats. Surely this is what democracy is all about. In return, I think they have the right to expect democratic behaviour from the organisations which they have elected—that is to say, to have some idea of the reasons adduced, the arguments put forward, and the dissent recorded in the deliberations of that elected body.
Further, where such deliberations are kept confidential there is inevitable suspicion of discreditable or questionable motives, and inevitably a loss of the confidence that would be there with open government, as well as a lot of aggrieved parents. One might argue that open government in these circumstances might involve further and very lengthy discussions, but they could hardly be lengthier than what has in fact taken place—that is, a delay of 15 months before the Secretary of State made his decision. I should therefore like to support the amendment.
10 p.m.
Baroness Young: I have listened with great care to what the noble Lords, Lord Kilmarnock and Lord Ritchie of Dundee, have said, and particularly to the cases that they cited. I think there are three such cases, in fact, including the one that was cited by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh on the preceding amendments.

489
The grounds for the local education authority's proposals should be clear from the consultations which it will properly carry out with parents and local people as well as, of course, within its own committees. The Government do not believe that it is appropriate or necessarily helpful to informed discussion to impose upon local education authorities a duty to disclose in every case all the material which may have contributed to the formulation of the proposals and all the stages in their internal considerations. It should be for the local education authority to consider how best to explain and justify its proposals. As a matter of fact, the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985 makes council minutes but not correspondence subject to the Act. That is one of the points covered by the amendment.
The noble Lords, Lord Kilmarnock and, Lord Ritchie may have in mind the observations which, under the terms of the 1980 Act, local education authorities may make to the Secretary of State on the objectors' comments on their proposals. Some local education authorities already make those available to the objectors, and the Secretary of State commends that practice. However, he does not consider that authorities should be compelled by law to adopt it. In cases where the local education authority's comments disclose a fact or an argument previously unknown to the objectors which is likely to be crucial to the Secretary of State's decision, he takes steps to ensure that the objectors are given a further opportunity to comment.
The existing legal requirements on local education authorities with respect to consultation and the present arrangements for ensuring that both sides have an opportunity to put their case to the Secretary of State are, we believe, adequate to ensure informed and balanced consideration of the merits of the proposal. I hope that in the light of that explanation the noble Lords will feel able to withdraw their amendment.
Lord Kilmarnock: I am of course grateful to the noble Baroness for trying to satisfy the point that I made, but she has not done so. I feel almost as indignant as did the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, on the related amendment that he moved earlier, Our
490
whole approach to this matter seems to be extraordinary. We are obsessed with secrecy. As the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, said, the decisions made have not been discreditable in any way, so why on earth should the information not be available to ratepayers, electors and parents? I find that extremely difficult to understand.
I think that the noble Baroness suggested that in the interests of local autonomy the Government do not want to impose upon local authorities any obligation to disclose information, but a duty is already imposed, as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh pointed out, on local education authorities in relation to school admissions. They have to set up an appeals system and give reasons for their decisions. That argument does not convince me in the least.
The noble Baroness has gone a tiny way towards answering my query on the Local Government (Access to Information) Act. She has confirmed what I thought: that it was not extensive enough to give the type of protection to parents' interests which is advanced in the new clause. The minutes are opened up but not the background correspondence, which is what would be relevant in a case in which there is a great deal of complicated consideration. Having said that, I can promise the noble Baroness that I shall certainly be coming back to this at the next stage of the Bill; but I shall withdraw the amendment for the moment.
I should tell her that there is a tremendous amount of parent steam behind this movement for greater access to information in this field. The Government certainly should not go away with the idea that they are doing anything for their own popularity in resisting that great parental movement which there is up and down the county. I do not know whether the noble Baroness is aware of the fact that there was a lobby here just the other day, when we met some of the representatives. So I do not think the Government should get the impression that this is a problem which will go away. We shall certainly come back to it at the next stage of the Bill; but with that I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Orr-Ewing Lord Orr-Ewing moved Amendment No. 98B:
Before Clause 48, insert the following new clause:
("Freedom of speech in institutions of further and higher education.
It shall be the duty of any university, polytechnic or college of further or higher education to use available resources, including if necessary requesting the help of the police, to prevent serious interference with freedom of speech within the law on their premises.").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move this amendment standing in my name, among others, and I am sure I should have support if this Committee were more full of genuine democrats, wherever they may sit. We must all have been disturbed to see indications in recent months of freedom of speech being denied to honourable and high-minded people in some of our over 40 universities, in some of our 30 or so polytechnics and in colleges of further and higher education. The polytechnics have now drawn up a code of conduct and 30 of them have signed it. This is a move in the right direction, but I cannot help feeling that a Government dedicated to law and order should strengthen their hand. With this Bill going through Parliament, this is a wonderful opportunity to stop those who wish to prevent free speech.
The Government may do as they did when some of us suggested in another amendment that parents should be allowed to have syllabuses made available to them, when they said that that might be dealt with in a regulation and by issuing a statutory instrument. They sent me an example of a statutory instrument and I am not convinced by that argument.
I have asked them whether they will tell me how many statutory instruments have been issued in connection with education in recent years. The one that they sent to me is SI.630, where it is laid down just what LEAs should provide in details and addresses of all the people concerned with schools in their areas. I want to know what happens if hard Left LEAs totally disregard those instructions.
This statutory instrument was laid and came into operation on 25th May 1981, so we have had very nearly five years when all this information should have been correctly noted. Have they all done this? Have they answered all the points in Schedule 1 and Schedule 2? Have they done it correctly? What happens if they have not done it correctly? Unless we are given convincing information that a statutory instrument is an effective method, I hope that the Government will be rather more forthcoming than they were on the amendment dealing with syllabuses.
None of us who put down the series of amendments was trying to strengthen the hand of the law. I was not intending on any of the six or seven amendments, about which we felt very strongly, to divide the Committee, because we were assured by the Government that they would think most carefully and sympathetically. I hope that on this occasion, when we are coming to the end of the group, we shall hear honeyed, helpful and constructive words to the effect that they will take this away and, in the gap between tonight and Report stage, which is due on 20th May, they will have time to reflect, to redraft if that is necessary and to bring something forward.
If nothing is brought forward, we shall certainly divide the House at Report stage and I hope that we
492
shall have the support of members of the Alliance who are dedicated to democracy; I hope that we shall have the support of some of the 200 Cross-Benchers who feel just as strongly as we do, and I also hope that we shall have the support of those people on the Labour Benches who are a little worried about the Militant Tendency, and not only the 11 who are being attacked in Liverpool and who have temporarily gone to ground, like other moles, but who will emerge when they see the chance is greater for them and when the host is free of critics.
The need is very well brought out by the fact that in the period from the middle of September until the end of November—just over two months—there were many occasions. I could give chapter and verse, but I shall not give all the instances. The Trent Polytechnic on 18th September forbade people putting the Conservative case from expressing their views. It happened at Huddersfield Polytechnic on 25th September; at North London Polytechnic on 25th September; at the Gwent College of Higher Education on the 25th; at Thames Polytechnic on the 26th; and at Liverpool Polytechnic on the 27th—"they would do that, wouldn't they", if I may use the famous words of a good lady; a lady, anyhow—and at Middlesex Polytechnic on the 28th. It is not just an accident. In a period of 10 days people wishing to express a Conservative view or recruit Conservative students to their cause were totally denied that opportunity, had their stalls broken up, and were physically assaulted by a number of thugs—well organised thugs.
I hope that the Front Bench will make helpful noises and that we get support from other parts of the Committee. Law and order is an important matter. Law and order starts in our schools, and perhaps even now starts in the kindergarten with five-year olds. Surely we are proud of our universities, of all places—all 43 of them. In no place is it more important that freedom of speech should be upheld. I beg to move.
Lord Denning: I should like to support this amendment. Freedom of speech is a fundamental principle of our constitution—not written, but laid down by the judges for the past 300 years. Freedom of speech means not only freedom for the views of which you approve, but also freedom for the views of which you most heartily disapprove. I have encountered some of these things myself. I went to speak at a large university college in London. I was surprised. While I was speaking groups of students were shouting "Out, out, out" and when I was being escorted through the doors they attempted to hustle me. But thank goodness some good strong-arm students on my side helped me through. I managed to get through unharmed. All that happened was that a few bags of flour appeared on the car afterwards.
That is the kind of treatment which even I received when I was speaking in favour of law and order and in favour of freedom of speech. The law condemns all such conduct. When these groups of people disrupt meetings it often leads to a breach of the peace, and in my view they are all unlawful assemblies. It goes back a hundred years to Beatty v. Gilbanks. The Salvation Army went along singing their hymns in the streets of

493
Weston-super-Mare—perfect freedom there we hoped—but they were set upon by rivals, the Skeleton Army. There was trouble. The unlawful assembly was not the Salvation Army, but the Skeleton Army who tried to interfere with them.
Your Lordships' Committee will remember a more recent case at the Garden Court Hotel in Cambridge. People arranged dinner in the hotel—supporters of the Greek people. There were some students in opposition—and, I am afraid, one or two dons, too—who led an attack upon those people peaceably having their dinner. They threw the chairs about and did a great deal of damage. Again, of course, it was unlawful assembly and the leader was sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment.
All were occasions when students disrupted meetings and tried to prevent free speech. They were all unlawful assemblies and such disruptions should be dealt with accordingly.
10.15 p.m.
Surely the best people to deal with them are the authorities of the universities themselves. They have ample disciplinary powers. There was a case in 1971 when some students at Keele University went about and portrayed themselves naked in the open, affronting all the others. Disciplinary powers were invoked by the vice-chancellor, who fined them £10 and sent them down.
We all know how the disciplinary powers at Oxford are well exercised. I wonder whether the Committee remember, as I do, the way that we dealt with the proctors there:
"See me dodge the proctors, see me cover the ground. See my coat-tails flying as the bulldogs chase me round. As his hat comes round the corner, my feet begin to go. For a race with the junior proctor is the jolliest game I know".
I only recite that to show that the disciplinary powers are there in the universities and that the universities are the proper people to deal with such matters. They should do so because it is their duty to deal with them.
The proposed new clause says that such shall be a duty and that it can be enforced by the law. There is now the remedy of judicial review that is available against universities—they are public authorities—and all the others. The law and the judges can order the university authorities to do their duty, as it says in the clause, to make resources available to deal with the situation, if need be. If there is a real danger of violence, then they can call the police.
At all events, the miscreants who are abusing freedom of speech—and I do not mind which side it is—must be prevented from interfering with our fundamental freedoms. In view of the prevalence lately of such incidents, as the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, mentioned, and of their repetition, there ought to be something in the statute to compel university and other authorities to do their duty and to stop interference with freedom of speech.
Baroness Cox: Freedom of speech under the law on the campus is a freedom essential to a free society. The
494
centres of higher education must enshrine that principle of expression of all ideas, including ideas that some might find unacceptable or even offensive, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, has emphasised.
That is so because the open expression and criticism of diverse views is vital to the pursuit of truth, which is the central function of the academic enterprise. Once academies begin to condone censorship, they are betraying their central purpose, and a society that allows that is taking a significant step on the road towards totalitarianism.
That is why the increase in the number of cases where people have not been allowed to speak on campus is so serious. Sometimes—and my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing has referred to many examples—they have been silenced by physical or verbal abuse. On many other occasions the silencing takes place before speakers even appear on campus, by refusal to offer invitations to people who might be seen by the authorities as likely to cause provocation to militant groups, or by rescinding invitations once they have been offered.
The publication by the Federation of Conservative Students entitled Licence for Thuggery describes many cases where speakers have been prevented from exercising the right of free speech. It gives many examples of situations where Conservative students have been subjected to pressure not to invite speakers who might become the focus of militant reaction.
I briefly give three examples to illustrate the seriousness of the situation. First, at Essex University meetings with Conservative MPs have had to be held off-campus in Colchester due to the violence that occurred when Teddy Taylor, Harvey Proctor and Cecil Parkinson tried to speak to the university last year. University authorities tried to ban Conservative MPs due to—I quote—"excessive costs" of security, but took no action when a speaker from Sinn Fein stated that the Brighton bombing was perfectly legitimate, or when striking miners, while using the student union facilities free of charge, were told where Conservatives held their meetings and even where they lived on campus.
Secondly, also reported in Licence for Thuggery, at Guildford College of Law the college authorities last autumn informed the Conservative Association that the two major political speakers due to visit the college during the year—Mr. Jeffrey Archer and Sir Patrick Mayhew—were "too controversial" and "likely to incite trouble" by their "presence" and so would not be allowed to speak.
Thirdly, I have in my hand a copy of a letter sent to the valiant Mr. Ray Honeyford, former headmaster of Drummond Middle School in Bradford, which rescinds an invitation from Bristol Polytechnic in February of this year. I quote:
"When the invitation was known about, expressions of concern were made to me as Chairman of Governors and I felt it appropriate to seek a decision from the full governing body. The question was discussed and it was agreed that permission should not be granted because of the clear possiblity of making the Polytechnic a focus of disturbance."
One of the most serious features of situations like this is the use of anonymous expressions of concern to

495
justify taking this serious step of censorship; in other words, the capitulation to blackmail without even the attempt to ensure freedom of speech under the law. Incidents such as these are occurring at an increasing rate. The most recent example reported in the press occurred in the last few days at the University of East Anglia, where attempts to prohibit Mr. John Carlisle from speaking proved successful.
I am well aware that the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals of Universities has issued guidelines which support the principle of freedom of speech. As my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing said, the Committee of Principals and Directors of Polytechnics is producing similar guidelines. However, these guidelines contain let-out clauses which can condone censorship in the interests of security. Our concern is that there is growing evidence that some institutions of higher education are using this as an excuse for prohibition of speakers in the interests of a quiet life. It is in the light of this evidence that we believe that the time is ripe to enshrine in law the commitment to the principle of freedom of speech and also the requirement that every effort will be made to prevent overt or covert censorship on the campuses of this country.
Therefore, I support this amendment, which I believe commands popular support both within your Lordships' House and throughout the nation.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: One of the most likeable things about the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, is that, despite his long and distinguished career in the law, he still has an attractive instinct for simple justice and simple remedies for delinquency. If I may say so, I cannot understand why he can support an amendment of this kind which is quite clearly defective and inadequate for inclusion in statute law.
We all know the mischief. The mischief is this disgraceful manifestation in some of our educational establishments of the well-known and common dislike that human beings have of hearing what they do not agree with. That is the whole problem of freedom of speech. We do not like hearing what we do not agree with, and it is no good pretending that we do. When you have a crowd of people who share that dislike, it generates its own electricity, its own energy and its own reaction. It is very difficult to establish the right of free speech by calling in the police to stand by while you utter what you have to say. It may not be easy to stop counter-noise to prevent someone speaking, as against physical interference.
It reminds me of a long account I once heard of Sir James Grigg, when he was Finance Member for India, playing golf with Sir John Anderson, later Lord Waverley. When they went to the tee, they had to wait to drive off until a line of troops had been put on either side of the fairway. Both were indifferent golfers. If one of them sliced a drive and went off the line of route, a signal had to be sent for reinforcements. This is the sort of ludicrous situation in which we could put ourselves if we follow the line of thought in the amendment.
In all my lifetime a great deal of licence has been conceded to university undergraduates. It is believed
496
that they have youthful spirits that they should be allowed to ventilate, whereas lesser mortals who went to boarding schools or secondary schools are just yobs if they do the same thing in their own town. There is a class distinction between rowdyism in the universities and rowdyism in the council schools. That tradition has been maintained, and it continues.
Look at what happens in another place! New Members come to another place and before long they are making the same noises as those who have been there for 25 years. If we are talking about freedom of speech, have not some of us been present when Ministers, and even Prime Ministers, have been shouted down and prevented from being heard, and Mr Speaker has had to adjourn proceedings owing to grave disorder and wait for things to cool down? I have witnessed this with my own eyes. We thought it all good fun, in keeping with the traditions of Parliament and all that kind of thing.
There is hypocrisy as well as class distinction and tradition in this matter of making enough noise and making a nuisance of yourself to prevent other people saying what you do not want to listen to. There should be other remedies. It is like crime, punishment, delinquency and all the rest of the problems of the social conditions at the present time. They are baffling. They are difficult to overcome. We do not know the answers. We rely on the simple prescriptions that we have had over the years.
I remember the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, in her last ministerial occupation. She was defending a kind of hybrid school beating system that the Government wanted to incorporate in the law to conform with the ruling of the European Commission of Human Rights. I thought at the time that she was so fed up with what she had been given to do as her first job as a Minister that she was throwing her hands up in order to get back to a civilised occupation. But no! It seems that she has got the iron in her soul. She is now the scourge of Left-wing militants who want to indoctrinate our children. She wants to deal with this form of unacceptable conduct in the only way that she apparently knows, and the only way that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning knows, and that is to call in the police.
Look what the poor police have to do! The prison officers go on strike, and what about the police? We seem to think that the police are there to deal with any failure of society and any mistakes of government in ruling the country. I do not think that it is fair on the police to expect them to do this all the time. If we are to spell this out we have to say "including mounted police if necessary", or "they should be allowed to draw their truncheons if necessary". We should have to provide a schedule before we can translate this into intelligible law.
10.30 p.m.
What about the more peaceful remedy? Why not put some of these institutions out of bounds to visiting speakers or guests whom they wish to invite to speak on a non-curricular matter? That means banning all the political organisations, Conservative, Labour or Liberal. One can say that they shall not have them on university premises. One can put a prohibition upon the use of university and other educational establishments

497
for non-educational and non-curricular purposes. There are surely some forms of restraint and restriction which could be employed. But these require studying.
With great respect, in this combination of the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, who is quite a noted hardliner in various directions, and the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, we are resisting the cane, because they do not know anything else but the cane. There are other ways. I think that some other remedy should be tried.
I am a hardliner in this sense. I never had a university education. I never got near a university and had no hope of going to a university. When I see how students behave at university I wonder what right they think they have to act as they do. We are too soft with them. Many more should be sent home and told to find a job. Why should we put up with that behaviour? These are the feelings of people in the street who cannot bear these demonstrations by those who are given the best in our education system and who are being made fit to rule even if they are not born to do SO.
I shall be glad to hear what the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, has to say on this approach. I am sure that it is the only sensible one. This is only one of several problems of this kind with which we have to deal. For example, we have not solved ordinary delinquency or misbehaviour. We have many problems in society at the present time which are baffling us all. We have to approach them steadily and soberly to try to find what can be done to improve the situation. That is the only sensible approach. I do not have any better suggestions to put forward at the moment than those I have mentioned, because they are difficult to find. But the proposed amendment is not the answer.
It is about time that some of us began to recognise the limitation of statute law. It will not do everything, by any means. Nobody knows that better than the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning. The statute law is a very imperfect instrument by which to translate the wishes of Parliament into the law of the land, precisely and clearly, so that they can be applied by the courts with the least controversy on the construction of the meaning of words. It is very limited and nearly always lacking in comprehension.
However, I have said enough. It is late at night and I am sure that noble Lords want to go home. Let us try to find some other approach. In the meantime, I am afraid that I must strongly oppose this amendment.
Lord Butterworth: I shall not take up much of the time of the Committee at this late hour, but I feel I must intervene, in particular on behalf of the institutions that have been subjected to criticism this evening. I must try to assure the Committee that the universities are deeply committed to the principle of freedom of speech. Their function could not be carried on without it. It is the sine qua non of the existence of institutions of higher education.
I would applaud the suggestion which has already been made that the institutions should be allowed to set their own house in order. The Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals has, as we have already heard, issued guidance to universities as to how they should fulfil their duty in this respect. My noble friend
498
Lady Cox referred to what she thought was a lacuna in that advice, and I shall come to that in a few moments. The Committee of Principals of Polytechnics is, I understand, about to issue a similar and strongly-worded document.
We should ask the proposers of this new clause what they intend to achieve by it. I shall not go over the ground that has already been traversed. However, I should like to ask this question. Do they intend by this clause to state the existing law, or is it their intention to change it? My objections to the clause, from a narrow point of view, are two-fold. First, it seeks to impose a duty upon the institutions, but does not provide any sanction for those who fail to fulfil it. In my view, that is not the function of a statute. Secondly, and more importantly, one sentence is trying to encapsulate all the principles of a very difficult piece of law. The danger is that because of this imperfect encapsulation in one sentence, many people may gain a wrong view about the existing law, unless, indeed, it is the intention of the movers of this amendment to change the law. That, I suspect, is what many people may think is happening.
Let me try to illustrate what I mean. My speech is obviously bringing gloom to the whole Committee. I, shall, therefore not take long. The problem which I wish to get home to Members is the complication of the different cases which arise and which have to be dealt with, and which cannot be satisfactorily treated by the one sentence which we have before us tonight. It is far better to leave this to the general law of the land, in order that the differences and the subtleties can be applied to the different circumstances as they emerge.
One case is when a member of staff is prevented by the members of that institution from speaking. A recent case has occurred at Bristol University, and Members will have seen that the Vice-Chancellor is taking action against a number of students. That case was not given as an example tonight. However, difficult cases arise when a person from outside is invited into the institution to address what is often a single meeting. One may be presented with the case of a man or woman who is activated by malice or by a determination to provoke a breach of the peace among a very sensitive audience. I can tell you what the head of almost any institution would do in practice in that case: he would go to the police to ask for advice. It we were to pass this clause as it exists tonight, it might in my view inhibit the police from giving the advice they would otherwise wish to give. It might prevent the institution, or its head, or the police, from fulfilling a duty which is incumbent upon them, which is just as great as the maintenance of freedom of speech, and that is the maintenance of the Queen's peace.
Frequently there are situations where the two issues, the freedom of speech and the maintenance of the Queen's peace have to be balanced. This amendment, in a marginal situation where there are desperate and difficult conditions, might inhibit those upon whom a sovereign duty of maintaining a peaceful situation would lie. It would therefore be far preferable that we should leave the institutions to set their own house in order, and if in due course Parliament is not satisfied with the situation, then some other remedy might be

499
brought forward. I am convinced that this clause is no remedy for any problem in the institutions of higher and further education.
The Earl of Swinton: The Government have great sympathy with the views underlying this clause. We have repeatedly reaffirmed both in this House and in another place the vital need to uphold freedom of speech within the law, and above all in our institutions of higher education. I know that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, was not pleased at being pelted with flour. I can assure members of this Committee that my noble friends and my right honourable and honourable friends in another place also do not enjoy being pelted with either flour or eggs. I always find it quite amusing, when students seem to complain about their grants, that they always seem to have enough money to buy eggs and flour to pelt at people that they do not like.
Institutions possess the powers and resources to meet the kind of threats to this freedom that we have seen in recent months. I cannot go along with the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, that this is nothing more than student highjinks. I think this is an essential threat to freedom. I do not think that the way is either to turn a blind eye or, even worse, to say that you cannot have anybody coming in to talk on politics in institutions of this kind: that they must just concentrate on whatever it is they are studying. After all, a number of students at universities and polytechnics are studying politics.
We believe also that institutions have come to a new realisation of the significance of these threats and are showing themselves prepared to take the steps needed to defend freedom of speech. The action required of them, that of ensuring adequate arrangements to avoid the creation of a situation where disruption can be imposed. is essentially practical, and would not be materially assisted by the proposed clause.
Institutions are already well aware of the need to seek and follow the advice of the police in appropriate cases. The Government believe that the guidance to universities issued at the end of last year by the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals offers practical help of the kind needed by institutions in planning a resolute response to the threat of disruption. As my noble friend said, it is also good to note that the Committee of Directors of Polytechnics intend shortly to provide such guidance to its members.
I can assure my noble friends Lord Orr-Ewing and Lady Cox that institutions themselves are aware of, and committed to, this need, and most are taking steps to protect this most precious of our rights. There do however remain a few which have still not woken up to the danger in their midst, and the Government will not fail to pursue with each and very one of them any failure to protect free speech by every means available.
But I think my noble friend Lord Butterworth made a valuable point. This clause would impose a duty on institutions without providing any sanction or basis for enforcement. It could not be supported by directions from the Secretary of State under Section 68 or Section 99 of the 1944 Act, since these sections do not apply
500
to the universities. In our view this clause would not help because it does not bite on the real problem.
This is one of organisation and determination, of having arrangements in place to anticipate and combat disruption where it may occur and having the will to take the appropriate action.
Finally, I assure my noble friends that the Government take this matter very seriously and are monitoring carefully incidents and institutions round the country. I can go further than my noble friend Lord Butterworth would wish me to go and I was very glad about what he said. We have already undertaken that, if the institutions do not put their houses in order, the Government will intervene, if necessary, with legislation. But as my noble friend Lord Butterworth said, institutions should be given a reasonable time first to act on the guidance which they have received.
I hope I have given perhaps a more helpful reply to my noble friend than he considers I have given in some of the answers to him and my noble friend Lady Cox during the course of your Lordships' Committee, but I do so in the light of the Government's clear undertaking to act further if matters do not improve, and I ask my noble friend to withdraw the amendment.
10.45 p.m.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My noble friend on the Front Bench has been more sympathetic. My noble friend Lord Butterworth asked what is the object of the amendment. The object is to take the opportunity of legislation passing through Parliament to strengthen the hand of those whose hands are, at the moment, too flabby and too irresolute. My noble friend Lady Cox so correctly quoted the instance of Guildford College of Law which found it impossible to allow a Law Officer of the Crown, Sir Patrick Mayhew, to talk to the students because it might cause trouble. Surely we need to strengthen the hands of those who are flabby. What about the case where Douglas Hurd, who, after all, is Secretary of State at the Home Office, wished to address King's College and a large gang of thugs turned up from the LSE, not too far away, and prevented him from entering the meeting itself, proceeded to chant slogans outside and pelted him and Conservative students with eggs when they attempted to leave the building? Clearly something needs to be done.
I could have listed 32 cases in a period of just over two months. We have heard that Bristol is bringing a case under the present law. It would seem, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, has suggested, that we would be wise to take this opportunity to strengthen the hands of those who probably desire to do the right thing, but who under present legislation do not have the courage or the guts to do it.
In view of the helpful reply I shall not press the amendment at this stage. However, we shall consider it most carefully and try to amend the wording in accordance with the views put forward from different parts of the Committee so as to please a greater section of those in the Chamber when we come to Report stage. I beg to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 48 and 49 agreed to.
Clause 50 [Interpretation]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 99:
Page 49, line 5, at end insert—
(" "corporal punishment" means anything done for the purpose of punishing a pupil which, apart from any justification, would constitute battery;")
The noble Lord said: I spoke to this amendment in moving Amendment No. 56A, which the Committee will recall was carried on a Division. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 100 not moved.]
Clause 50, as amended, agreed to.]
Remaining clauses agreed to.
In the Schedules:
[Amendment No. 101 not moved.]
Schedule 1 [Grouped schools]:
The Earl of Swinton The Earl of Swinton moved Amendments Nos. 101A and 101B:
Page 51, line 10, leave out ("grouped")
Page 51, line 10, after ("construed") insert (", in relation to any grouped school,")
The noble Earl said: I speak to both Amendments Nos. 101A and 101B. These are both drafting amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 2 [New Schools]:
The Earl of Swinton The Earl of Swinton moved Amendment No. 101C:
Page 54, line 31, leave out sub-paragraph (5) and insert—
(" (5) Where the requirement for there to be an instrument of government for a new school has taken effect, the temporary governing body of the school shall, until such time as the governing body is constituted—

(a) continue in existence (notwithstanding that the arrangement under which they were constituted has come to an end by virtue of paragraph 5 below); and

(b) be treated as if they were the governing body.")

The noble Earl said: This is a drafting amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 101D had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
The Earl of Swinton The Earl of Swinton moved Amendment No. 101 E:
Page 56, line 31, after (" (1) ") insert (" or (2) ")
The noble Earl said: The Committee will observe that paragraph 7 of Schedule 2 provides two alternative methods for the appointment of temporary parent governors: by the LEA or, where the new school is to be opened as the result of the closure of two or more other schools and the LEA so determines, by the governing bodies of the closing schools. Under the first alternative, the LEA has to appoint those with children who are likely to become pupils at the new school or, failing that, who have children of compulsory school age. This requirement was not previously extended to appointments made by the
502
governing bodies of the closing schools but, on reflection, the Government believe that it should be.
It is hoped that, in practice, those appointed in such circumstances will in may cases be elected parent governors of the closing schools; such people would normally meet the first criterion, of having children likely to attend the new school, and would almost certainly meet the second, of having children of compulsory school age. However, if these parent governors were not willing to serve on the new school's temporary governing body or if perhaps some of these had children above compulsory school age who would not be moving to the new school, it seems right that the governing bodies should be under the same constraint in making their appointments as the LEA is by virtue of subparagraph (6). That is achieved by this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Swinton The Earl of Swinton moved Amendments Nos. 101F, 101G and 101H:
Page 57, line 23, leave out ("election or")
line 36, leave out ("election or")
line 38, leave out ("election or")
The noble Earl said: With permission, I shall move Amendments Nos. 101F, 101G and 101H together and speak also to Amendment No. 102A. The wording of the provisions in Schedule 2, paragraphs 10(1), 11(1) and 11(5) at present exactly reflect, as is intended, those of the equivalent provisions in Clauses 7(1), 14(8) and 14(12) for full governing bodies. However, the consequent references to elections are otiose as the circumstances of new schools mean that temporary governors in all categories are appointed and never elected. These four amendments thus remove the references to elections. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 102 not moved.]
The Earl of Swinton The Earl of Swinton moved Amendment No 102A:
Page 58, line 12, leave out ("election or")
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Swinton The Earl of Swinton moved Amendment No 102B:
Page 61, line 23, leave out ("26") and insert ("25 and 26(1) and (2)")
The noble Earl said: The Committee will observe that the difference between the Bill as presently drafted and the change proposed by this amendment is that sub-paragraph (3) of paragraph 26 would thereby apply to aided schools. This is something of a long-stop provision, as we do not envisage many occasions when the temporary governing body, for whatever type of school, will be without their clerk. However, there may be times when the clerk is absent—he may even have fallen under the proverbial bus, which I hope happens to none of your Lodships on your way home tonight at this late hour—and on such occasions it seems to us right that the temporary governing body should still be able to transact its business by asking one of its members to act as clerk. Paragraph 26(3) at present provides this for all except aided schools, and it seems sensible for the provision to extend also to those schools. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Swinton The Earl of Swinton moved Amendment No 102C:
Page 62, line 27, leave out ("(2)") and insert ("(3)")
The noble Earl said: This is a technical amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 3 agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Transitional provisions]:
[Amendment No 103 not moved.]
Schedule 4 agreed to.
Remaining schedule agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.
House adjourned at four minutes before eleven o'clock.

  STATEMENT ON THE DEFENCE ESTIMATES 1986
  STATEMENT ON THE DEFENCE ESTIMATES 1986
  ARMS CONTROL: VERIFICATION
  ARMS CONTROL: VERIFICATION